Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBERS SWORN.

The following Members took the Oath and signed the Roll:

Right honourable James Avon Clyde, Borough of Edinburgh (North Division).

John Mackintosh Macleod, Esq., Borough of Glasgow (Kelvingrove Division).

Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood, Borough of Sunderland.

Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Archer-Shee, Borough of Finsbury.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1919–20).

Estimate presented for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1920, with Memorandum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 14.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1910–20 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1920 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 15.]

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Address for "Return of the names of every Member returned to serve in the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet the 31st day of January, 1911, and dissolved the 25th day of November, 1918, specifying the names of
the county, city, university, or place for which each Member was returned (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 250, of Session 1911)."—[Sir William Bull.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BOLSHEVIST REGIME).

Mr. WILSON-FOX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the ignorance which prevails in this country with regard to the true state of affairs in Russia, and to the effects which the régime of the Bolshevists has had upon the social and economic life of the country, His Majesty's Government will cause to be published at the earliest moment such official information as they are in a position to give upon this matter, so that a true picture of the conditions prevailing may be presented to the people of this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The question of publishing the Reports which we have received from Russia with regard to the affects of the Bolshevist régime is under consideration.

Sir WILLIAM BULL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received any Report from Mr. Bruce Lockhart or any other Consular representative of thin country now or formerly in Russia on the effects of the Bolshevist régime on industry and commerce which can be made available for the public?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Reports have been received from Mr. Bruce Lockhart and certain other Consular representatives of this country who were formerly in Russia. The question of their publication in still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 2.
asked to what extent, and through what agency, the schemes for relief of Montenegro, which were under consideration on the 7th November, 1918, have since been carried out; and whether it is a fact that the Serbian troops in occupation of the
country have prevented the supplies reaching the Montenegrin people for whose relief they were intended?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I undertand that shipments of relief supplies have already been made to Montenegro in accordance with a decision of the Supreme Council of Supply and Belief. The Supreme Council, which sits at Paris, is charged with the relief of Montenegro. They have not yet reported the particulars of the shipments made or contemplated. They decided at a meeting on 13th ultimo that Mr. Hoover, the United States delegate, should designate an American officer to act on behalf of the Associated Governments for the moment in provisioning Montenegro. No report has reached me that Serbian troops have prevented supplies reaching the people for whom they are intended.

Mr. R. McNEILL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in consequence of the refusal of the Government to allow the government of Montenegro to be diplomatically represented in London the interests of that country throughout the war have been in formally entrusted to an English private gentleman, Mr. Alexander Devine, who voluntarily and without reward has given his services on behalf of our least powerful Ally, and whose position in that respect has been known to the Foreign Office through correspondence and personal interviews; and will he say why Mr. Devine was for two months refused a passport to Paris when desiring to go there, since the Armistice, on a mission to consult with Mr. Hoover and the American Red Cross with regard to the revictualling of Montenegro?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Mr. Devine visited Paris in August last and has lately been permitted to proceed there again. But the Foreign Office has seen no reason to press for the removal of the restrictions on travelling in order to enable Mr. Devine to make frequent journeys to Paris, where the Montenegrin Government is already fully represented.

Mr. R. McNEILL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to carry out his under taking to give consideration to the question of the preservation of Montenegrin
nationality under its own monarchy if the people of Montenegro so desire; if he will say in what manner it is proposed to ascertain the conditions, if any, under widen the people of Montenegro may be willing to join a Serbo-Croat federation or other form of political union; and if he can give an assurance that in any plebiscite that may be taken for this purpose the people of Montenegro shall be secured against coercion or undue influence by the Serbian authorities or troops in occupation of their country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of the best method of arriving at the true wishes of the Montenegrin people as to the future status of their country without outside interference is at present engaging the attention of the Allied and Associated Powers, and it would be premature to make any declaration at this stage.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why the Montenegrin Government is not represented at the Peace Conference?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to give notice that I will refer to this question on the Motion for the Adjournment on Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGLISH PROPERTY (CONFISCATION BY GERMANS).

Mr. R. McNEILL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mr. W. F. Dixon, an artist in stained glass, of European reputation, whose work is to be found in many cathedrals and other public buildings in England and abroad, who had been resident in Munich for twenty years before the War, left that place on the outbreak of war at the instance of the Foreign Office, communicated to him through the American Consul; that by so doing he was compelled to abandon real and personal property of a value of many thousand pounds which was promptly seized and confiscated by the German authorities; that since his return to England Mr. Dixon and his sister have been subsisting at Herne Bay on £1a week allowed him by the trustees of the Prince of Wales' Fund; and that the Treasury have refused to assist this artist on the ground that his claim can only be settled after the War; and whether, in
view of the fact that Mr. Dixon lost his property and was reduced to subsist on charity through his prompt obedience to the Government on the outbreak of war, and that some time may still elapse before claims against enemy Governments can be liquidated, he will take steps, either by influence with the Treasury or otherwise, to provide sufficient alimony for Mr. Dixon to enable him and his sister to live in decency until his claim can be settled?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Mr. W. F. Dixon has been in communication with this Department in regard to the order he is said to have received from His Majesty's Government to leave Munich. No such order was sent through, the United States authorities by His Majesty's Government. It seems probable that the order emanated from the German authorities. I understand that Mr. Dixon has been in communication with the Public Trustee in regard to his claim for loss of property, but he has not registered a claim with the Foreign Claims Office, though he applied for the necessary forms in December, 1917, and they were sent to him at that time with an explanation as to the manner of registering a claim. There are no funds at the disposal of this Department from which an allowance could be granted to Mr. Dixon in the manner suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT OFFICE (ACCOMMODATION).

Lieutenant-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused by the lack of accommodation at the Passport Office, causing a block on the pavement in Victoria Street and many hours of waiting for the public desiring to get passports; and whether he will make arrangements for those who go there merely to obtain an application form to enter and leave the building by a different door from those who have to wait for the issue of their passports?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The insufficiency of accommodation at the Passport Office has been engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government for some time. Great, difficulty was found in securing suitable premises, but arrangements have now been made to remove the office to No. 1, Lake Buildings, St. James's
Park, on Saturday next. The increased accommodation there provided will enable the very large number of applicants to be dealt with expeditiously, and arrangements will be made there as suggested in the latter part of the hon. Member's question. I would add that there is no occasion for persons who only want forms to call at the Passport Office. Such forms can be obtained through the post or from any of the shipping agents or banks.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPORTO (INSURRECTION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the claim made by the insurrectionary royalists of Portugal that a British cruiser has arrived at Oporto to prevent the Portuguese fleet bombarding the rebel town; whether any British cruiser has been sent to Oporto; and, if so, why this was done in view of the misunderstanding to which it might well give rise?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: All communication between Oporto and the South having been cut, at the request of British subjects in Lisbon, which received the support of His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, H.M.S. "Liverpool" was instructed to call at Oporto on her homeward voyage from Gibraltar, in order to protect, if necessary, British persons and property. Explicit instructions were given to her commanding officer to take no part in political affairs. As the situation at Oporto was normal, H.M.S. "Liverpool" did not remain for more than a few hours, and proceeded to this country. The Portuguese Government are aware of the facts of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN PRINCE OF SWEDEN'S VISIT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 8.
asked whether His Majesty's Government were consulted as to the visit of the Crown Prince of Sweden to this country; and, if so, on what grounds it was sanctioned?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The visit of the Crown Prince of Sweden on the present occasion is promoted exclusively by private family reasons, and has no official character; but it is welcome both to His Majesty's Government and to the people of this country.

An HON. MEMBER: "Is he not a pro-German?"

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that the Royal Family of Sweden and the whole of the aristocracy there have been bitterly anti-English during the War—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking of a neutral and friendly country.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS (RUSSIA).

Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to the treatment which British prisoners are receiving in Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reports which are received in regard to the present treatment of British prisoners in Russia are conflicting. As far as can be ascertained, those civilian prisoners who are in Petrograd are imprisoned in the Kronstad fortress where their condition naturally causes anxiety, although we are without definite information as to the facilities afforded to them for receiving food and other comforts from friends and relations outside.
The British naval and military prisoners in Moscow are kept in the Bootirka convict prison. There, conditions are believed to be somewhat easier than at Petrograd and to include certain liberty of movement. The men receive comparatively bolter treatment than the officers, as the Bolshevik authorities try to convert the former in order to use them for propaganda purposes.
All possible measures are being taken to afford relief to the British civilian, naval and military prisoners in Russia, and also such steps as are practicable in order to effect their exchange.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR SERVICE.

Mr. ROSE: 11.
asked what progress has been made in the reform of the conditions of appointment to the Consular Service, so as to secure its recruitment from persons of greater acquaintance with economic, industrial, commercial, and labour matters, and also the better training for their duties of the persons selected for appointment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): The whole question has been thoroughly investigated both personally and by Committees appointed to inquire into special points. A comprehensive scheme of reform dealing with the whole conditions of the salaried Consular Service, including the points mentioned by the hon. Member, is in the hands of the printer, and will be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration within the next few days.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Consular Service propose to limit their appointments to British-born subjects?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The salaried Consular Service has been limited to British-born subjects of British-born parents, and it will be so in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEUTRAL COUNTRIES (ENEMY TRADERS).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many proclaimed enemy firms in Scandinavia and Holland have been taken off the statutory list since the signing of the Armistice; and whether, seeing that the police of taking these enemy traders in neutral countries off the statutory list is unfair to other loyal neutral traders, he will take steps to afford trading facilities to these loyal neutral traders during the Armistice?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Since the signing of the Armistice, 101 names out of a total of 552 have been removed from the statutory list for Holland, and 215 names out of a total of 744 from the statutory list for Scandinavia. These names are, however, those of neutral traders. All enemy firms are retained on the statutory list.
Every endeavour is already being made, and will continue to be made, to afford to loyal neutral traders such trading facilities as are compatible with the maintenance of the blockade, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware, is one of the conditions of the Armistice.

Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of those proclaimed enemy firms are at present dumping German goods in this country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; I am not aware of it, but inquiries will be made.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not premature to abandon any methods that we have of bringing pressure to bear upon Germany pending the peace?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PENSION WARRANTS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 13.
asked the Pensions Minister whether a new officers' Pensions Warrant will be brought out in the near future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): My right hon. Friend is carefully considering the existing Regulations relating to the pensions of both officers and men and of their families, and any amendments of the present Warrants which may be found necessary will be embodied in new Warrants.

Captain Viscount WOLMER: Will this Warrant include pensions for services before this War?

Sir J. CRAIG.: As this is a matter affecting policy, I would like my hon. Friend to wait until the Minister is in his place.

TRAINING SCHEMES.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 14.
asked the Pensions Minister how many men are now in training under the Pensions Warrant?

Sir J. CRAIG: Including 666 blinded men who are being trained in various occupations at "St. Dunstan's," the number of men now in training under the Pensions Warrant is 7,939.

ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS CLAIMS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 15.
asked the Pensions Minister what is the usual time taken to decide an alternative pensions claim; and whether any steps can be taken to expedite such cases?

Sir J. CRAIG: The time taken to decide a claim to alternative pensions depends entirely on the difficulty of the case, but if the claim is submitted by the local committee with proper and complete verifica-
tion of pre-war earnings, a decision could be notified within, approximately, a fortnight.
It will be realised, however, that the proper verification of pre-war earnings is frequently a matter of great difficulty, necessitating prolonged and careful inquiry. Cases have, therefore, to be referred back, and in these cases a longer time is taken. Official inquiry officers, with the necessary qualifications, have been appointed for almost all areas, and it is confidently expected, as a result, that decisions will be expedited. Moreover, the staff is being greatly strengthened and increased with a view we dealing in a more rapid manner with the very large number of claims now being received.

Colonel YATE: Does the reply apply to officers or is it only applicable to men?

Sir J. CRAIG: As there has been some delay with regard to alternative pensions for officers, it chiefly concerns men, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question I shall be very glad to inquire.

GRANTS FOR RE-STARTING BUSINESSES.

Mr. GLANVlLLE: 16.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, seeing that men discharged from the forces without wounds or other disability are debarred from receiving grants from the King's fund for obtaining businesses, notwithstanding that they may have been, in business when called to the Colours and that their service has caused their businesses to be abandoned, such arrangements can be made as will enable State funds to be used to restart businesses closed in this manner?

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to answer this question. Arrangements are being made for the continuation and extension of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Scheme to officers and men demobilised from His Majesty's Forces in cases of special hardship arising from military service. In such cases financial assistance from public funds will be available for the purpose of enabling applicants to re-open businesses which have been closed under circumstances such as those to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say if any instructions have been issued showing the way in which both officers and men should apply for the grants that he suggests? Can he say if it
is the Civil Liabilities Commission, or whether it is some authority under his own Department?

Dr. ADDISON: I could not answer that question without inquiry.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving to each soldier and officer on his discharge a pamphlet giving full instructions how to get all the benefits open to him?

Dr. ADDISON: Such a pamphlet has been prepared, and is in print. It is not my business to see that it is issued, but that of another Department.

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 17.
asked the Pensions Minister whether any decision has been come to in regard to the establishment of a Government factory for artificial limbs?

Sir J. CRAIG: My right hon. Friend is examining the problem of artificial limb supply in all its bearings, and has appointed a Committee to consider and report on the following matters, namely: (1) Whether, and in what respects, the existing arrangements with regard to supply, fitting, repair, and re-fitting should be modified; (2) whether it is desirable that the Ministry should provide one or more institutions for the supply and repair of limbs, and should employ therein partially disabled or limbless men; and (3) whether the existing arrangements for the supply of surgical instruments are satisfactory, and, if not, bow they can be improved. The members of this Committee will be Mr. Herbert Guedalla (Chairman) and the hon. and gallant Members for the Reigate Division of Surrey and for Nelson and Colne, who have kindly consented to act, together with Sir Charles Kenderdine, K.B.E., and a leading surgeon.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 18.
asked the Pensions Minister how many men are at present waiting for the fitting of artificial limbs; how many artificial limbs are awaiting repairs; and how many men have been provided with spare artificial limbs, in accordance with promises made by the last Pensions Minister?

Sir J. CRAIG: The number of men whose stumps are healed awaiting the fitting of artificial limbs on the 1st of this
month was 2,832, and the number of men whose stumps are not sufficiently healed for the fitting to take place is 5,321. Arrangements for the repair of artificial limbs are now made by the local committees. From the returns available the arrangements appear to be working well, and I do not know of any arrears.
There has not yet been any general provision of spare limbs. The promise made by the late Minister of Pensions was, I may remind my hon. Friend, that the provision of spare limbs would be undertaken when the arrears in the supply of first limbs had been worked off. In urgent cases, however, such as those of men going abroad or of men in special need by reason of their particular occupations, spare limbs have already been provided. My reply to the preceding question will assure the hon. Member that the whole question is being carefully considered.

Sir R. ADKINS: May I ask whether the local committees are helped in the responsibility placed upon them for the repair of artificial limbs by free access to the central place where such limbs are made?

Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. Friend will have observed by the answer to the previous question that the whole of these matters are being or will be carefully inquired into by the committee to be set up.

Colanel YATE: Are these limbs supplied to officers?

Sir J. CRAIG: Yes, Sir.

EXTRA DIET ALLOWANCE.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: 19.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the desirability of giving discretion to the war pensions (disablement) committees to grant more than 10s. a week extra diet allowance allowed to men who are suffering from acute forms of such diseases as tuberculosis and diabetes, seeing that the most they can receive for 100 per cent. disablement is 27s. 6d. a week, so that they can have the necessary comforts of coal, blankets, cotton wool, etc., the cost of which cannot be covered by the 10s. allowance, which is only sufficient for the extra nourishment required by the invalid?

Sir J. CRAIG: The grant of 10s. a week for extra diet is not intended to do more than cover the cost of the food itself, but where in exceptional cases special bedding
or special clothing is necessary in these home-treatment cases it may be provided by the local committee at the cost of the Ministry. I may remind my hon. Friend that the disablement pension of 27s. 6d. a week now tarries a 20 per cent. war bonus.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: 20.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of persons who are in receipt of unemployment pay in Ireland, and the approximate amount which is being paid out weekly to such persons?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): The number of persons in receipt of out, of-work donation in Ireland during the first week in February was approximately 82,500, and the amount paid approximately £110,000.

Colonel YATE: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of un employment donations now being paid in Ireland; by whom these donations are granted; and what, check there is to ensure the proper grant of such donations?

Mr. WARDLE: On 31st January, the latest date for which complete figures are available, the number of out-of-work donation policies lodged for payment in Ireland wan 59,093. Details of the scheme under which this donation is administered are given in a published leaflet, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Colonel YATE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to an article in this morning's papers regarding the demoralisation of Ireland, and will be answer the last part of the question and say what checks there are on the improper grant of these allowances?

Mr. WARDLE: I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers. I will make inquiries, as I will do with regard to the last part of the question.

Colonel YATE: Are there no checks then?

Mr. WARDLE: The same checks as there are in this country.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at this moment a very large number of persons receiving these donations who have no right whatever to receive them?

Mr. WARDLE: If there are such cases and particulars are sent to me, I will have inquiries made at once.

Captain REDMOND: Does not the same fact apply to England?

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether it does not apply much more to Scotland?

Mr. WARDLE: I am prepared to give the same answer to both questions.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 36
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the alleged practice among Dublin dock labourers of ceasing work at a given time daily to go and draw their out-of-work donation?

Mr. WARDLE: The practice referred to in the question would render those, who adopted it liable to prosecution for obtaining money by false pretences, and I am not aware that it exists. I shall be, glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with any particulars in his possession, in order that inquiries may be made.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient inquiries are made in individual eases to place obstacles in the way of such malpractices?

Mr. WARDLE: As far as I know they are.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman, let the military forces in Ireland look after this matter?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount expended in out-of-work donation in Ireland during the first week in February?

Mr. WARDLE: Complete returns of the amount paid in out-of-work donation in Ireland during the first week in February are not yet available, but it is estimated that the amount was £110,000.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Form U.I. 85 which sent out to verify the claims of those applying for an out-of-work donation states that, if the recipient considers the circumstances under which the claimant left were not any ground for disqualification, the form need not be returned; whether in Ireland these forms are often sent at the direction of the applicant, not to the late employer but to a foreman, or ever a friend of the applicant, in whose employment he has never been; and whether he will take steps to
alter the form and to ensure that its non-return is no longer to be considered as sufficient evidence that there is adequate reason for unemployment?

Mr. WARDLE: The Form U.I.85 is in substantially the same terms as that which has been used for the last seven years in connection with unemployment benefit under the Insurance Acts, and contains the statement referred to in the first part of the question. An applicant for out-of-work donation is required to give the name and address of his last employer, and Form U.I.85 is sent to the employer so named. If my hen. and gallant Friend is aware of any case in which an applicant has fraudulently given in. correct information with regard to his previous employer in order to obtain donation, I shall be glad if he will give me particulars so that a prosecution may be instituted. The question of revising the form is under consideration, but my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it would not be just to deprive a workman of donation merely on the ground that his last employer has failed to answer questions concerning him.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the hon. Gentleman anyhow leave out this direct invitation to employers not to return the form, as it is often sent out by the agency in Ireland with these words underlined in red?

Mr. WARDLE: I will consider that.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women now unemployed and the total weakly amount which is being paid to them for unemployed pay?

Mr. WARDLE: The number of women and girls unemployed at 31st January, as indicated by donation policies lodged at Employment Exchanges at that date, was 425,464, of whom 400,102 were women and 25,362 girls. It is not possible at present, without an elaborate analysis, to state the total weekly amount paid to these women and girls. The weekly rates of donation are 25s. for women and 12s. 6d. for girls, together with supplementary allowances in respect of dependent children of women over eighteen years of age at the rate of 6s. per week for the first dependent child and 3s. per week for each additional dependent child.

Sir F. BANBURY: 90.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum that up to to-day has been given in Ireland to persons out of employment or said to be out of employment; and under what Statute and under what Vote this sum has been given?

Mr. WARDLE: The total sum paid up to 11th February in Ireland in respect of out-of-work donation is estimated at £550,000. These moneys are being provided from the Vote of Credit.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR EX-SERVICE OFFICERS AND MEN (IRELAND).

Sir ROBERT WOODS: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether steps have been taken to secure similar facilities and pecuniary assistance to ex-Service officers and men in Ireland for university and other higher educational training as have been provided in England, Wales, and Scotland?

Sir EDWARD CARSON: 64.
also asked whether the arrangements for interim grants to ex-Service students announced last month apply to ex-Service students who desire to pursue their education or training in institutions in Ireland; and to-whom in such cases application should be made?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): The answer is in the affirmative. Corresponding arrangements have been made for Ireland, and will, it is hoped, be announced in to-morrow's newspapers. Applications should be addressed to the Education Officer, Appointments Department, Ministry of Labour, 64 and 65, Merrion Square, South Dublin.

Colonel McCALMONT: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether this, is a new decision?

Mr. SAMUELS: I do not understand what is meant by a new decision. The arrangements were made as quickly as possible. The difficulty arose on account of there being no Education Department for Ireland as there is in the case of England and Scotland. But there has been no delay that could possibly be avoided.

Captain REDMOND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several applications
have already been made from Ireland, and that the answer has been "No Irish need apply''?

Mr. SAMUELS: I am not aware of any such answer having been sent. If any Irishmen do apply arrangements are made to deal with the cases expeditiously.

Mr. DEVLIN: When will the Scottish Minister for Ireland be in his place to give us this information?

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (REINSTATEMENT).

Viscount WOLMER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will guarantee to reinstate all men who voluntarily and with permission left Government employment to serve in His Majesty's Forces during the War?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): By Treasury Circular of the 11th August, 1914, a promise was given to all Civil servants (including persons holding whole-time unestablished and temporary situations in Government Departments, provided that their service was not internment but quasi-permanent and regular) who joined His Majesty's Forces after 4th August, 1914, with the permission of the head of their Department, that their civil posts would be kept open for then on their return from naval or military service. The promise also applies to persons of the same class who were released from civil duty by their Department under the Military Service Acts.

Viscount WOLMER: Does that also apply to working men who were employed at Government factories at Woolwich or other places?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does my hon. Friend's answer apply to work at the Government Dockyards?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be glad to have those questions put separately. The answer I have given applies to Civil servants

Viscount WOLMER: Does my hon. Friend say there should be one rule for Civil servants and another for working men?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are not men employed in the Royal Dockyards Civil servants?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like to be clear in my own mind before I give a definite answer on a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (IRELAND).

TEMPERANCE LECTURERS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS.

Lieutenant-Colonel ALLEN: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if lectures on the subject of temperance are being given to the student teachers in the training college of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland; if so, how many lectures have been given during this session, with the names of the lecturers; and whether instruction in temperance is now obligatory in Irish national schools?

Mr. SAMUELS: Lectures on the subject of temperance are given in the Marl-borough Street Training College by Dr. Bell, the Professor of Elementary Science. It is understood that Dr. Bell has up to the present given ten lectures this session on temperance as part of the elementary science programme. Temperance is now one of the ordinary subjects of instruction in national schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTING REGULATIONS (BICYCLES).

Viscount WOLMER: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to amend the Lighting Regulations in regard to bicycle, motors, and vehicles so that they are restored to their pre-war conditions.

The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I presume the Noble Lord refers to the requirement of a red rear light on bicycles, and to the restrictions (now considerably reduced) on powerful lights on motor cars. These restrictions are important in the interest of safety, especially under the present condition of the roads, and I think they should remain in force until there is time to consider the question of permanent Regulations to take their place.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what bearing the condition of the roads has on the rear lamps of bicycles?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of existing difficulties, would it not be possible to relax the restrictions with regard to bicycle lights?

Mr. SHORTT: I am advised that would not be wise. If one comes suddenly on a bicycle, it is more difficult to get out of the way.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on no account to relax that Regulation?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

FOREIGN WAITERS (DEPORTATION).

Colonel YATE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will make arrangements for the immediate deportation as undesirable aliens of all foreign waiters who have been on strike lately, and thus make room for the employment of British subjects?

Mr. SHORTT: Any foreign waiter who is an undesirable will be deported in the same way as any other undesirable alien; but the fact that an alien takes part in a strike in company with British subjects of the same occupation is not alone a sufficient reason for his deportation.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 26.
asked how many cases of alien enemies have been considered by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee, and of that number how many have, since the Committee was formed, been interned.

Mr. SHORTT: I understand that between July last, when this Committee was reconstituted and undertook the work of revising the exemptions they had previously granted, and the end of 1918 when they suspended the work, they considered about 3,000 cases, and as a result of their recommendations, some 150 men have been finally interned. This figure does not include provisional internments afterwards exempted by the Committee, nor aliens interned for special reasons without reference to the Committee.

GOVERNMENT SERVANTS.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 27.
asked how many cases of Government servants of alien enemy taint have been considered by Lord Justice Eldon Bankes' Committee, and, of that number, how many have been removed from Government service?

Mr. SHORTT: I understand the Committee hope to present their report to the Prime Minister in the course of the next few days.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May we infer that the Committee will have gone through the whole of the Government Departments?

Mr. SHORTT: I suppose so.

ALIEN ENEMIES RELEASED.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 28.
asked the Home Secretary how many alien enemies have been released from internment since the Armistice, and why they were so released?

Mr. SHORTT: One hundred and eighteen persons interned as alien enemies have been released since the Armistice was signed, of whom more than two-thirds were released on being duly recognised as Czecho-Slovaks, and, therefore, ceasing to be enemies, and the remainder had been interned merely pending further consideration of their cases by the Advisory Committee, who eventually recommended exemption from internment.

REPATRIATION.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 29.
asked how many alien enemies have been repatriated since the Armistice, and of that number how many have previously been interned?

Mr. SHORTT: Since the Armistice was signed 6,132 alien enemies have been repatriated, of whom over 6,000 had been interned.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 30.
asked how many alien enemies are now interned, and whether it is proposed to repatriate them all?

Mr. SHORTT: The latest return shows 18,607 enemy civilians interned in this country. The Government has decided on the general policy of general repatriation of interned enemies, and this is now being carried out as quickly as shipping facilities permit. If any are allowed to remain here, it will only be for reasons of an exceptional character.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that apply to the British wives of aliens?

Mr. SHORTT: That depends on the circumstances in each case.

Mr. HOGGE: Are any British born wives interned?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that now.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House the names of those allowed to remain, and the reasons for it?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the names, nationality, ages, and war service of the leaders in the strikes which have recently taken place in Belfast, on the Clyde, and in London?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no official information, and as some of the persons referred to are awaiting trial I do not think it would be desirable for me to say anything which might prejudice their trial.

Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, for the purpose of obviating trouble regarding the question of the hours of labour and of eliciting public opinion in each trade on this subject, he will, with a view to legislation, take steps to arrange a conference in each representative trade and industry?

Mr. WARDLE: The question of hours of labour has within the last few weeks formed the subject of discussion between employers and workpeople in a large number of the principal trades of the country, and already about 3,000,000 workpeople are covered by agreements for reduced working hours which have become operative since the 1st January of this year. A further 2,000,000 workpeople are concerned in negotiations that are now in progress in the various trades. The negotiations have taken place between the organisations of employers and workpeople in each trade, and the matter is clearly one which the trades must be allowed to endeavour to discuss and settle for themselves. If there is failure to settle, the services of the Ministry of Labour are at the disposal of the parties.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether, when the discussion took place, attention was given to the enormous increase in the cost of articles compared to the extra wage given?

Mr. WARDLE: I have not been present as the discussions, which have been between the representatives of employers and workpeople, who presumably know what they are doing.

Sir F. HALL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter careful attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME.

Mr. GILBERT: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Order as regards Summer Time for this year; and, considering that the Order commenced on 24th March of last year, and in view of its success, if he proposes to fix the same dates for the Summer-Time period in which the Order is in force this year?

Mr. SHORTT: I propose to advise that an Order in Council should be made applying the Summer Time Act this year. The duration of the period is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. BRACE: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether the promised committee of inquiry into the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Acts is now to be set up?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. I hope to complete the arrangements for this inquiry at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMANDEERED HOTELS (RELEASE).

Colonel BROTHERTON: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the release of the whole of the hotels in London and also in the country can be effected without delay?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Hotels in London and the country which have been taken over by my Department are being released as rapidly as is possible, and before any other types of accommodation. The rate at which this can be effected must depend on the demobilisation of Government staffs over which I have no control. The Victoria Hotel in Northumberland Avenue is being vacated to-day. The Hotel Cecil and the Grand Hotel will shortly be surrendered. I have been bringing for some time, and am continuing to bring, all the pressure I can on the various Departments to release accommodation at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour, whether, in view of
the fact that Employment Exchanges do not supply labour unless the proper district rates and other conditions are to be observed, any measures are taken to ensure that before an employer can obtain labour through the medium of an Exchange he guarantees that the proper trade union rates and conditions will be observed by him?

Mr. WARDLE: The practice of the Employment Exchanges is not as described by the hon. Member. Their procedure is to bring to the notice of applicants for work the terms and conditions offered by employers. For these they take no responsibility. They are, however, in a position to give applicants information as to district rates and conditions. The hon. Member will understand that grave difficulty might arise if the procedure which he suggests were followed, but it will have my consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL CARETAKERS (LANCASHIRE).

43. Colonel W. THORNE: asked the Minister of Labour, whether his attention has been drawn to the difference between the education committee of the Lancashire County Council and the school caretakers with regard to their conditions of labour; whether in December his Department was notified of the dispute; and whether any action will be taken to use the good offices of the Department in securing a settlement?

Mr. WARDLE: The Department is in communication with the parties to this dispute and efforts are being made to arrive at a satisfactory settlement. I will communicate with my hon. Friend on this matter and let him know the result of the action which is being taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SHIPYARD (CHEPSTOW).

Colonel W. THORNE: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if a number of protest meetings have been held at Chepstow, and have passed resolutions against the sale of the shipyards in that district; if the same people have protested against the Government giving out contracts for the erection of cottages to contractors on a percentage basis rather than under the direct, control and management of local governing bodies; and if he intends taking any action on the question?

Mr. WARDLE: This is not a matter which has come before the Ministry of Labour. Perhaps my hon. Friend would repeat the question, and put it to the Ministry of Shipping one day next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. MACMASTER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government have taken to initiate the housing and land settlement schemes forecasted during the General Election?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I would refer my hon. Friend to the two Bills, notice of presentation of which were given in the House on Tuesday last.

Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to introduce these Bills?

Mr. BONAR LAW: At the earliest possible moment.

Captain REDMOND: Will the Housing Bill apply to Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, this Bill does not apply to Ireland?

Mr. DEVLIN: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in regard to this most important question in relation to Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that is being considered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see."]

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have nobody here to put down a question to?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is mistaken. If he puts down a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland it will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Irish Attorney-General.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be here?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

Lieuteaant-Colonel GUINNESS: Does not the absence of Irish representatives from this House show that they do not take any interest in the housing of the working classes?

Mr. DEVLIN: At any rate, we have Guinness's stout represented!

Mr. SPEAKER: I called on the hon. and gallant Member (Lieutenant-Colonel W. Guinness) to ask the next question on the Paper, not to ask an offensive question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TERMS (INDEMNITIES).

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the total cost of the War to the British Empire has yet been assessed; and whether a claim for compensation will be pressed at the Peace Conference rot merely for direct war damage, including cost of war pensions, but also for all outlay on armaments, munitions, personnel, and all other extraordinary expenditure in connection with the War?

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the promises made at the recent election, he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the payment of indemnities by Germany and the Central Powers?

Colonel YATE: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British claim for an indemnity from Germany and other enemy countries will include a claim for all military expenditure in connection with the War on all fronts or only a claim for actual damage done, such as ships funk by submarines and destruction by aeroplane bombs, etc.?

Mr. GWYNNE: 77.
asked the Prime Minister whether figures have yet been prepared, or are in course of preparation, showing the amount to be claimed by this country from Germany in respect of the War; and whether the claim will include not only actual damage done, but the cost we have been put to in carrying on the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The British delegates on the Commission are definitely instructed to claim an indemnity which will include the costs of the War as well as damage actually inflicted, and the Commission are now considering the amount to be claimed, the method in which payment can be made, and the means of enforcing payment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.

Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 17.
asked the Prime Minister if he proposes, during this Session, to introduce legislation on the lines suggested in the Reports of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool relating to the acquisition and valuation of land for public purposes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Legislation for the purpose named in the question will be introduced, but the exact terms of the Bill have not yet been determined.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (OFFICERS' WAR GRATUITIES).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any decision as to the payment of Income Tax on officers' war gratuities?

Major EDWARD WOOD: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend to gratuities payable to officers of the Army and the Air Force under Article 497 of the Pay Warrant, and to any other similar gratuities payable to members of the Navy. Army, and Air Force, the exemption from Income Tax which already obtains as regards gratuities for wounds and gratuities granted on compulsory retirement before eligibility for pension?

Major Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he in aware that gratuities on demobilisation originally were authorised for officers of the Territorial Force on mobilisation in order to reimburse some portion of the loss necessarily sustained by them on being suddenly taken away from civil employment; and why, as these gratuities are granted as compensation for loss sustained owing to serving their country, officers are charged Income Tax by the Treasury?

Sir F. HALL: 138.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Army gratuities to officers in connection with the present War are now, or have at any time, been assessed for Income Tax; if Income Tax is now to be paid on these amounts will he state when such arrangement will be
made; if this is the present practice will the Government forthwith give instructions that it is to be altered in order that gratuities made to officers on discharge may be given free of Income Tax; and, if such alteration is to be made, will the Government refund the amount charged for Income Tax to such officers who have been debited with the same?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend has no power to take the course suggested without legislative sanction, but he will seek Parliamentary authority to give the relief in the Finance Bill. He will propose that the relief should be given in the case of the gratuities as from the outbreak of the present War.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Pending legislation, will any steps be taken to exact this Income Tax?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will convey the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir F. HALL: In respect of the reply to Question 138, which I put on the Paper, may I ask whether in cases where Income Tax has already been deducted it will be reimbursed after the matter has been discussed on the Finance Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: That will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government propose to appoint a Minister of Health?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention of the Government to proceed with a Bill setting up a Ministry of Health at the earliest possible date.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Pending the appointment of a Minister of Health, who will advise the Government in regard to the health side of housing?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That will be done in the meantime by the Local Government Board, I presume.

An HON. MEMBER: Will that scheme apply to Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only give the same answer I gave before.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIAN AND DARDANELLES COMMISSIONS.

Viscount WOLMER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will now order the publication of the evidence tendered before the Mesopotamian and Dardanelles Commissions respectively?

Mr. R. McNEILL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he will now give instructions for the publication of the evidence given before the Mesopotamia Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government do not consider that it would be in the public interest to publish the evidence at present.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether it would not be in the public interest because of diplomatic considerations, or is it necessary to shield individuals?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not at all because it is necessary to shield individuals. The whole subject was minutely considered by the Cabinet, and they were quite clear that, at all events until peace is signed, it would not be advisable.

Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the public look with the greatest suspicion on the Government's refusal to publish this Report; and would it not be in the public interest that the facts should be known?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is asking exactly the same question.

Oral Answers to Questions — KEY INDUSTRIES.

Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the uncertainty and anxiety prevailing in industrial and commercial circles throughout the country as to the policy of the Government with regard to key industries, he will at an early date be in a position to make a definite statement with regard to the protection of such industries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the passage of the Gracious Speech from the Throne dealing with the subject referred to in the question, to which, in the meantime, I cannot add anything.

Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when a further statement will be made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible; but I am sure no one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend, however much we should like to do it, that we cannot do everything at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS TAX (ENEMY COUNTRIES).

Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of suggesting at the Peace Conference that an Excess Profits Tax shall be levied in all enemy countries, the revenue derived there from to be allocated to the payment and redemption of the Allied national war debts?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The best means of securing payment is now being considered by the Inter-Allied Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF COMMODITIES.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the feeling in commercial circles that Government control of commodities has resulted in increased prices; and whether he will consider if the time has now come when trade should be allowed to resume its usual course?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Everything is being done to facilitate the return as rapidly as possible to normal conditions of trade.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that continued Government control is keeping up the price of foodstuffs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is open to question. The Government is considering at this moment the best way in which to lower prices, and there is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion that the Treasury is interfering with the selling prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMORIAL PLAQUE (DEAD SOLDIERS' RELATIVES).

Mr. GWYNNE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of the Government granting some recognition to the relatives of those
who have fallen in the War, similar to the diploma of honour granted by the French Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It has already been decided to present a memorial plaque and scroll to the next of kin of those who have fallen in the War. Specimens of the plaque may be seen in the Tea Room of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY (RATIFICATION BY PARLIAMENT)

Colonel YATE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the international treaty embodying the League of Nations will be submitted to the judgment of Parliament before it is concluded?

Mr. LAMBERT: 73.
asked the Prime Minister if the British Delegation to the Peace Conference in Paris will have plenary powers to bind this country in the matter of peace terms, or whether such terms will be subject to the final ratification of Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treaty will be signed by the delegates of the Powers concerned, but so far as the British Government is concerned, it will not be ratified until it has been laid upon the Table and Parliament has an opportunity of expressing its opinion.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will Parliament have the power of altering the Treaty when it is laid upon the Table?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am really rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should put that question. Does he really think it possible that any Treaty could ever be arranged in the world if something like twenty Powers are to discuss the details of it? It seems to me quite impossible.

Sir C. HENRY: Will it be submitted to Parliament before it is presented to the enemy countries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no, I cannot say that. The Treaty will presumably, after it has been arranged by the Allies, be signed by the enemy countries.

Mr. BILLING: Directly it is signed the Peace Conference will be dissolved, and there will be no Court of Appeal in the event of the House refusing to ratify?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That may happen, but it is hardly necessary to look so far into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING IN RUSSIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether Kief has been retaken from the Bolsheviks; whether Petlouva's or Skoropadsky's government now controls the town; and whether any British or Allied troops assisted at the capture of the town?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. No confirmation has been received of the statement that the town of Kief has been retaken from the Bolsheviks who are understood to control it at present.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether any British troops are at present in the Ukraine; if so, whether they are supporting the pro-German Hetman Skoropadsky Government or the peasant party of Petlouva, which rose against Skoropadsky; and whether the French Consul, M. Ainnot, who supported Skoropadsky, is still directing Allied affairs in that country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (INCREASED PRODUCTION).

Captain TERRELL: 66.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the policy of the Government in regard to securing to the country the greatest possible production from agriculture; and whether it is intended to enlarge or extend the principles of the Corn Production Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible in answer to a question to indicate the steps taken, or proposed to be taken, by the Government to secure the greatest possible production from agriculture. As regards the last part of the question, I am not yet in a position to state whether it will be necessary to extend or enlarge the Corn Production Bill.

Captain TERRELL: May I put this question down a week from to-day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid it is impossible to give an answer so rapidly as
that. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that we cannot do business so quickly as he and I would like.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS' GRAVES (VISITS BY RELATIVES).

Mr. GILBERT: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has come to any decision as to when the relatives of men killed on the Western Front will be allowed to visit the graves in France and Flanders; if he will state if any scheme is in hand whereby special fares and accommodation will be provided for such relatives who desire to go; and if he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid it cannot yet be stated when conditions in France and Flanders will make it possible for relatives to visit graves in those countries. In reply to the second part of the question, a committee of representatives of the voluntary organisations interested in the matter has been called together, and is considering ways and means, and I hope that they will shortly put forward a scheme.

Sir B. STANIER: To whom are we to apply for leave to visit the graves?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter has not yet advanced sufficiently to enable applications of that kind to be dealt with. The railway communications on the Continent are severely strained at present by the demobilisation and general difficulties. I cannot hold out any expectation of this other matter, in which very natural interest is taken, being pushed forward until the congestion of the communications has been terminated by the completion of the demobilisation.

Mr. STANTON: rose from a seat under the Strangers' Gallery.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member come inside the House?

Mr. STANTON: I was crowded out.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should get up earlier.

Sir R. ADKINS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply equally to the question of visiting the graves at the Dardanelles?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said the whole matter is being considered. The moment communication becomes clear, action will be possible, and by that time we shall be in possession of the Report of the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY AND NAVY PENSIONERS.

Sir ALFRED YEO: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the hardships suffered by the old Army and Navy pensioners who were pensioned on the old rates of pension previous to 1914; and whether he will consider some substantial increase to these pensions so as to enable many of those men who are elderly men and depending of their pensions to meet the increased cost of living?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right lion. Friend has asked me to answer this question. So far as Army "campaign" pensioners are concerned (men over sixty-five coming under Article 1170 of the Pay Warrant) an increase corresponding to that given to old age pensioners has already been given. The question of a general increase of small pensions cannot be confined to Army and Navy.

Sir A. YEO: The quantity is a dwindling quantity, and many of them if they do not have their pensions increased will have to appeal to the Poor Law. Could not these pool men have some small increase to prevent them going to the workhouse?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said nothing inconsistent with that.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as the official representative of old soldiers, represent these facts to the Treasury? Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to take the matter up?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was meditating whether it was necessary, seeing that the Noble Lord's intervention has already ventilated it to some extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTIMATES COMMITTEES.

Sir S. ROBERTS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to set up Estimates Committees as recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure of the late Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that my hon. Friend should await the discussion upon the Government proposals for new Rules of Procedure.

Mr. FRANCE: Will the Committee on National Expenditure be appointed again in this Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That will be considered. We have not yet taken a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Major NEWMAN: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the acute shortage in the Metropolitan area of housing accommodation for the middle classes; and will he say whether any building scheme, financed partly or wholly on public funds, is in contemplation to relieve the same?

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This point is being borne in mind in connection with the Housing Bill now under preparation.

Major NEWMAN: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the alternative that is being offered to occupiers of houses rented at more thin £35 of eviction or of purchasing the house they live in at an inflated figure; and will he say if the Government propose to introduce legislation to enfranchise the lease hold in the immediate future?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is now under examination, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL ISSUES COMMITTEE.

Mr. BETTERTON: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the unrest in commercial circles caused by the refusal of the Treasury to permit British companies to make new public issues of capital while foreign companies, which are not thus impeded by their Governments, are enabled to enter into competition with British trade in the world's markets?

Mr. WILSON-FOX: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the restrictions now placed upon issues of row capital to be used for the purposes of railways,
industrial trading, and mining concerns will be removed or relaxed, with a view to encouragement of British production and development at home and overseas, to increase the funds out of which future Government loans and taxation will be provided, to improvement and stabilisation of the sterling exchange, and to an extension of the area of employment for labour?

Major EDWARD WOOD: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction created in the City by the attitude of the Capital Issues Committee of the Treasury; and whether he proposes to continue the Committee in power; and, if so, for how long?

Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the delays in the transaction of business by the new Capital Issues Committee of the Treasury; whether he is aware that the Committee only sits once a week, and refuses to hear oral evidence or explanations from any applicants; and that as the Committee puts questions by correspondence only it sometimes takes weeks before applicants receive any answer, and consequently unnecessary delay and hindrance is caused to British industry and enterprise?

Mr. BALDWIN: This subject is at the present time being considered by His Majesty's Government, and my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement on the subject in the course of next week.

Sir J. HOPE: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members of the new Capital Issues Committee of the Treasury; what is the number of the secretariat of the Committee; and that were its costs during the year 1918?

Mr. BALDWIN: The present members of the Committee on Fresh Issues of Capital are Lord Cunliffe, Mr. Gaspard Farrer, Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, and Mr. J. F. Mason. There are two secretaries and an unpaid assistant. The cost in 1918, so far as it can be definitely earmarked, wag approximately £740.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the goose which lays the golden eggs is getting rapidly weaker and will shortly die unless the stranglehold of the Treasury Issues Committee is removed?

Mr. BALDWIN: I know all about it.

Mr. BETTERTON: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the terms of reference under which the New Capital Issues Committee of the Treasury now operates; the date of the terms of reference; and whether those terms are still appropriate to the present financial situation?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Committee was appointed in January, 1915, and charged with the general duty of supervising capital issues. No specific terms of reference were issued to the Committee, but a notice was published in the Press at the time giving, in general terms, the considerations which would guide the control.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the intention was that this Committee should only interfere in cases where the public are being asked to subscribe money? Is it not a fact that they have acted ultra viresever since and have interfered even with the formation of family companies?

Viscount WOLMER: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reconsidering this matter will he consult the authorities of the Stock Exchange and the chambers of commerce?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure he will take whatever steps he ought to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — CELLULOSE ACETATE (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: 75.
asked the Prime Minister when the Committee consisting of Lord Sumner, Lord Inch-cape, and Lord Colwyn appointed last August to consider the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on cellulose acetate will make its Report?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the Committee has not yet completed the taking of evidence, but it is expected that the Report will not be long delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY.

Mr. GWYNNE: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Belgian Government are claiming from the German Government not only for damage done to her country but for pensions for her disabled men; and whether this country is putting forward similar claims?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of reparation from Germany to the various Allied Governments is at present under consideration by a Special Committee of the Conference in Paris, and I am therefore not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — LETTERS AND CHEQUES (INCREASED CHARGE).

Mr. MACMASTER: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advantage has accrued to the public revenue from the increase in postage on letters and cards, and what advantage from the in crease of a penny on cheques; and when such increase may be discontinued?

Mr. BALDWIN: The proceeds of the additional Cheque Duty to 31st January last were £1,070,000. The new postal duties of last year are estimated to produce, in the current year, about £3,400,000. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL CHARGES.

Mr. MACMASTER: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in consequence of the reduction of national expenditure, he has taken any steps with a view to restoring penny postage on letters and a halfpenny postcard; and, if not, will he take such stops at the earliest possible date?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second, while my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his Budget statement, he wishes, me to point out to my hon. and learned Friend that the national expenditure is still in excess of the revenue, and that the present cost of the postal services is very much in excess of the cost before the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Sir CHARLES HENRY: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention to set up a Royal Commission to consider and report upon the incidence elative to the levying of Income
Tax so that some of the existing anomalies may be removed; and whether he is aware that such a Commission was definitely promised by the Government in power previous to the War?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir.

Sir C. HENRY: When will it be done?

Mr. BALDWIN: Very soon.

WOUND AND DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 91.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions that Income Tax be not charged in respect of wound pensions and disability pensions awarded to members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force.

Mr. BALDWIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks me to say that wound and disability pensions are chargeable with Income Tax under the law as it now stands, and that he has no power to remit the charge by executive action. He thinks, however, that it is contrary to public sentiment to tax these payment, which moreover appear to him to be payments in the nature of compensation for injury received and therefore analogous to awards under the Workmen's Compensation Act which are not taxable. He will therefore seek authority in the Finance Bill to exempt them from Income Tax as from the beginning of the now current financial year.

Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is it not possible to cease to collect this tax until the matter comes up before the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those officers who have paid Income Tex on wounds received before the commencement of the current financial year will have that Income Tax refunded to them?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY).

Mr. ACLAND: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the subsidy paid to the iron and steel industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply to
this question. The total of the subsidies paid in connection with the manufacture of iron and steel for the three years up to 31st January, 1919, amounted to about £48,500,000 (including excess of freight and insurance over the parity rates for imported ore). Of the total the excess freights and insurance represent £31,750.000.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (DEBATE).

Captain FITZROY (by Private Notice): asked the Leader of the House whether, in view of the very general desire among Members interested in agriculture, he can give any assurance that adequate time will be provided during the Debate on the Address to discuss the Amendment dealing with this subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I fully realise the importance of a discussion on this subject, and I hope that an opportunity may be found in the Debate on the Address, but it is not in my power to choose the subjects for discussion, and my hon. and gallant Friend knows that it is necessary to proceed as quickly as possible with urgent business.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an extra day for the Debate on the Address, so that other Amendments on the Paper may be taken?

Captain FITZROY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Amendment in regard to agriculture was put down by the unanimous wish of at least 100 Members; and in view of the fact that probably only an hour will be available tomorrow, will he promise us the earliest opportunity after 31st March?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot promise to extend the Debate on the Address as suggested by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing). I think it is essential that it should be concluded this week. I think my hon. Friend (Captain Fitzroy) might wait until we have concluded the Debate on the Address. It is possible that more time than he thinks may be available. If not, I feel as strongly as he does that it is in the general interest there should be a Debate on this subject, and I promise to give it as soon as possible.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same opinion is held in regard to aliens? An application
was handed to Mr. Speaker yesterday signed in half an hour by eighty Members, asking for time for a Debate on the Aliens question. As it is not possible to debate it on the Address, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that a Government Bill dealing with aliens will be brought in at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only give the same reply. I can assure the hon. Member that I quite realise the importance of the matter, and if it is not debated on the Address I shall do my best to get some further opportunity.

Sir H. NIELD: Could we not sit on Saturday to deal with this important subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I admire the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend, but I doubt if in the end business would be expedited by a course of that kind.

Mr. DEVLIN: Could we not hold a meeting on Sunday to discuss the alien question?

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

AERIAL NAVIGATION BILL,—"to make temporary provision for the regulation of Aerial Navigation; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by General SEELY; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what business will be taken next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we hope to proceed with the Bill dealing with the election of Ministers. We shall take the Second Reading, and as much of it as we can get afterwards
On subsequent days, Tuesday and Wednesday, we propose to introduce the new Rules of Procedure.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the Rules of Procedure be distributed beforehand, so that we may have them before the Debate begins?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly. I am not sure that we can put them on the Paper to-night, but we hope to do so.

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.

[THIRD DAY.]

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [11th February],

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, four Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

Question again proposed.

INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, at the end of the Address, to add the words,
But regrets the absence of any mention of definite proposals for dealing with the present causes of industrial unrest and for securing, as regards wages and working hours, conditions of labour that will establish a higher standard of life and social well-being for the people.
In moving this Motion on behalf of the Labour party I do so without any apology at all. I very much regret the imperative necessity which has caused us to place on the Order Paper a Motion of this character. There can be no doubt among Members in this House, and certainly no doubt among
the people of the country, that this Island home of ours is face to face with a very serious situation in consequence of industrial unrest. That being so, one is taken aback, and taken back indeed very seriously, when we find nothing of a direct character in the Gracious Speech from the Throne dealing with this very vital and very serious problem. I think that it is true that there are people, members of our trade unions, men who take a leading part in our trade unions, who indulge in threats. But this House will make a mistake if it allows itself to believe that it is these people's conduct alone that has brought the country to this stage of industrial unrest, that has made it necessary for the Labour party to table this Motion and raise a discussion upon it. Because of this I was surpised that the Prime Minister dwelt almost wholly upon this phase of the labour industrial problem. He never attempted to deal with what after all are root difficulties, and if the Prime Minister and the Government desire to allay the unrest that is in the country it will be essential on their part not alone to protest against any endeavour on the part of a minority of trade unionists to stampede organised labour into disastrous action, but to go to the root of the matter with a view to bringing about a remedy for the solution of the problem.
A large number of the advocates of the recent down tools strikes are strong trade unionists. They are strong supporters of trade unionism, and, given a reasonable chance, they favour the settlement of industrial disputes by negotiation rather than by stoppages; of work. They are highly educated and, through the special advantages which our system of free education and technical schools and secondary schools has given, they are very much better educated than their fathers, and, through this education, they have received a vision, fortified by knowledge, not only as to the use of man, but as to the dignity of man, and they will not be content, indeed they will not tolerate, conditions of employment and of life such as their fathers endured as ordinary conditions of their existence. It was never more clear than it is to-day that you cannot educate men and then enslave them or partially enslave them. We shall, therefore, be much more helpful, in these days of stress and trial, if we apply ourselves to discovering the fundamental causes of this industrial unrest and then courageously apply the remedy.
The settlement of industrial disputes by negotiation and reconciliation has failed, not because the principle is wrong or unsound, but because the machinery is so faulty and incomplete as to make it a physical impossibility to secure equal justice for the workers, and the delay in arriving by negotiation at a settlement of serious disputes has driven almost to despair the most enthusiastic supporters of settlement by negotiation. This being the case, is it to be wondered at that bodies of workmen are ready to listen to the advocates of the sudden lightning stoppage policy? Who has given them more encouragement to pursue that policy than some employers, and is the Government itself entirely free from having given encouragement to the operation of that policy? If the down-tools policy is to be discredited as a vicious and unprofitable weapon, employers of labour, and the Government, must make it their habit to concede the reasonable demands of their workmen before and not after a stoppage of work has taken place.
4.0 P.M.
Has it not been the experience during recent years that, while responsible trade union leaders have been negotiating over long periods, endeavouring to arrive at a settlement by the constitutional method of negotiation, only to have to report failure at the end, that a few days' strike by the advocates of what is known as "a direct action policy" have secured concessions, either from the employers themselves or through the interposition of the Government, which were refused to the trade union leaders? If that be the case, and it is, is it surprising that the "direct-action" or "down-tool" policy finds supporters among the working classes? In face of such experiences as old-established trade union leaders have received in failing to settle and get reasonable concessions of grievances, it would he little short of a miracle if the "down-tool" policy failed to win approval among the masses of the workers. To concede terms after a stoppage which were refused to the official trade union leaders by negotiation before a stoppage is more than a blunder—it is a crime against the workman and against the State. If you are going to find the real causes for industrial unrest, then I am bound to place on record that not a little of the responsibility of this
unrest is the failure to give to the respon trade union officials such settlement by negotiation as they were entitled to receive on behalf of the workmen they represent.
There is an idea abroad that if we had in this country a system of compulsory arbitration we should have the machinery necessary not only to solve industrial unrest, but to arrange a fair and equitable method of settling disputes between capital and labour. I hope the Government will not have in its mind to introduce any such measure as compulsory arbitration. Organised labour has declared on more than one occasion that it cannot have compulsory arbitration as a system for settling disputes. Organised labour opposed compulsory arbitration because the scheme does not contain within itself a basis which would ensure equitable treatment for employers and employed. Consequently organised labour places on one side compulsory arbitration as a system for settling disputes as an impracticable proposal which they cannot accept. Organised labour stands strongly in favour of the settlement of disputes by conciliation and negotiation. I have always been strongly in favour of conciliation boards, and while we shall level some criticism at the Government I think the Government would have cause to complain about the Labour party if the Labour party did not bring to the common stock its contribution towards the solution of this matter. Therefore, while we criticise the Government for not having introduced into the King's Speech direct provisions for dealing with this industrial unrest, I hope our criticisms will be of a helpful character. Consequently my submission is that trade unions can only exist upon a basis of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, to be most effective, must have some kind of instrument for negotiation between employers and workmen. While we turn down compulsory arbitration as an impracticable and impossible proposition, I do submit that in a scheme of conciliation boards with an independent conciliator chairman, with limited power, we have the fabric on which we may build a very effective instrument for dealing with this industrial unrest by negotiation and a settlement of grievances.
It is not a difficult thing to settle a general wage question for an industry.
The real cause of industrial unrest which this country is at present suffering from is the cumulative effect of a multiplicity of small grievances of individual workmen which have not been redressed, rather than a grievance of a great wage question. In connection with the wage question, if you turn to the mining industry you find we have there conciliation boards, that have effectively, for many years, dealt with the general wage question. There the chairman is limited in his power. He has not the power of an arbitrator. His power is confined to giving a casting vote for or against a distinct proposal. I stand wholly in favour of that in preference to any varying power given to any chairman. By compelling applicant parties, whether for an advance or for a reduction, to be responsible themselves for their original demands the very operation places on the people who know best and have most knowledge of the industry what they think is a reasonable demand to make, and consequently, when the employer knows that if he asks for 10 per cent. reduction in wages he must prove his full right to his 10 per cent. reduction or get nothing. When workmen know that if they make an application for 10 per cent. advance in wages they must show their full right to it or get nothing, because the independent conciliator chairman has no power to vary. I assure you from experience it makes us careful to keep our application well within what have ought to have I stand for that as a general proposition; but the remarkable fact is that while employers of labour will agree to the appointment of an independent conciliator chairman for settling the general wage question, when they are asked to appoint an independent conciliator chairman for the settlement of disputes in connection with their own individual concerns, they have, up to this moment, declined to accept any such proposal or any such principle. I would like to impress the mind of the Prime Minister and the Government with this fact, that if this industrial unrest is to be dealt with satisfactorily then the individual workman must feel that he is safe to have the protection under the machinery which will be treated for the settlement of disputes by negotiation as between the trade union and the employer or the employers' organisation.
The employers are guilty of many flings, but they are guilty of a very
short-sighted policy in their treatment of their workmen in their individual concerns. You could not have a great upheaval such as this industrial unrest demonstrates unless behind it there was a tremendous driving power of grievances among the individual men. What are the experiences which many leaders of organised labour have? The employer claims the right to vary the terms of contract for individual workmen and does vary it. In the daily operations of the concern the manager can alter a man's terms of contract and say, "These are your terms. If you are aggrieved then you must go to your board to have it settled." I say with all gravity that nothing more that I know of than that has been the reason for creating this reservoir of unrest which men of anarchical tendencies have been able to use in connection with these lightning strikes which we have complained about and which we are asking this House to deal with. How can you expect intelligent workmen, educated workmen, men who know something of economic law and of the rights of man in this age, to sit down quietly and see their employer varying the terms of a contract when they possess no such power? If they want to vary the terms, even for an individual, they must go to the board. Therefore, while I am advocating conciliation boards for industries as one of the best solutions I know of for dealing with these industrial problems, it must carry with it the hall mark that neither employer or workman can have the right to vary the conditions of employment without an appeal to the board and without getting the consent of the board.
I stand strongly in favour of dividing up the great industries into accessible areas with independent chairmen, which will enable disputes no be dealt with quickly, because I know of nothing more irritating than for men who have grievances to have to wait month after month and then get no settlement in the end. Take the South Wales coalfield, of which I can speak with knowledge. In connection with the South Wales coalfield there is a general conciliation board for settling general wages. I should hope that there should be one general board for settling the wages of the entire mining industry of the United Kingdom. But in connection with the collieries, although the board, under its regulations, will hear disputes on points between employers and workmen, and appoint one employer and
one workman, or two employers and two workmen, in order to negotiate a settlement, yet if those parties fail to mutually agree there is no independent conciliatory chairman to come in in that district, and the only alternative left to the workmen is either to go on without their grievances being redressed or to go out on strike. While we turn down compulsory arbitration as a system for negotiating disputes between capital and labour I commend to the Government the proposal for appointing conciliation boards, with independent chairman of limited power, but the boards must operate not alone for general wages disputes, but for individual disputes, quickly, promptly, and satisfactorily, as between employers and employed. Of course, no disputes can be avoided unless there is a spirit on both sides to avoid difficulties. One of the sad things to reflect upon at this moment in British public life and industrial life is that both employers and employed have lost confidence in each other. How can we restore confidence? I am not quite sure that they have not lost confidence in Governments. How can we restore confidence? We are a law-abiding people. We desire to advance our social programme of reforms by evolution rather than by revolution; but if our people are to have confidence created as between their employers and themselves, and as between the Government and the people, then the Government indeed must not deal in generalities, but must endeavour to deal in a root manner with what after all is a root problem.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a most enthusiastic land reformer. I looked through the King's Speech to see what kind of proposal and programme he is introducing to deal with the land. What is the use of talking about reforming agriculture unless the nation is going to get control of the land? Land is the basis of all human activity. Without the control of land, and indeed without land, we as a people perish, and must perish. I remember being enthused in my early Parliamentary days by the speeches of my right hon. Friend in connection with land questions, and now the Labour party are waiting for him to redeem his early programme. We thought that in his great social programme, for which he appealed to the country and got such a sweeping majority, that at last we should be receiving in his first King's Speech declarations
that we were face to face with the settlement of the land question and a scheme of land nationalisation. It is no use talking about a great housing scheme unless you first settle the land question. I am certain that, with the best intentions in the world, the Government will find itself right up against difficulties nearly insurmountable unless they first settle the land question by getting control of the land. The Labour party say, and they desire me to say in no uncertain language, that if the industrial unrest is to be solved, then the Government will need to get down to the root of the matter, and one of the first items touching the root of the problem is to settle the land question and the nationalisation of the land. The human heart is most deceptive in its love of power. Those who control the land control the lives and destinies of peoples, and inasmuch as all the people must have land to live, we say let the Government give an earnest of its social programme to the people of this country by getting hold of this very instrument upon which they must all live, and that will be one of the most encouraging signs which we could have, and one of the greatest driving forces which you could give to reasonable moderate-minded men for appealing to the mass of the people to trust the Government and give them time to solve these great problems. I shall listen with interest to my right hon. Friend's reply as to how he proposes to deal with the land question, inasmuch as without real success on the land question there is little hope that he can deal with the great housing question.
In addition to nationalising land, if you are going to deal with this industrial unrest at the root, you must nationalise railways and you must nationalise mines. If my right hon. Friend can say to-day when he makes his speech that it is part of the Government policy to nationalise the mines of this country he will go a long way to helping the moderate men in the Miners' Federation of Great Britain to ease the situation. How can the Government deal with what after all is private property, technically, such as the collieries? The real suspicion behind the miners is this, that when they are asked to wait they think they are asked to wait for the advantage not of the State, but of the colliery owners. Therefore, if the Prime Minister wants to take a long step forward to case the mining situation, let him make the declaration this afternoon that it is the policy of his Government to
here and now declare in favour of a scheme of nationalisation of mines. No one knows better than my colleagues who sit around me the value of coal in these days. Surely if coal is of such vital necessity to this industrial and commercial people it ought to be under the control of the Government rather than under the control of private people! Therefore we put our proposal forward for the nationalisation of land, railways, and mines, not as any kind of Socialistic idea, but as a plain business proposition to business people. Until this question is settled there is going to be serious industrial unrest. How can you deal successfully with the colliery owners over any of these matters under pressure? Is it fair to them to deal with them and to bring pressure on them when it is their own private property? Surely the better thing is to buy them out. Take the whole of the property for the State, and what is now a speculative industry would become a sound investing industry, holding State securities. I cannot help hearing interruptions. Our difficulty is this that your inquiries take so long a time. When we talk about inquiries we are talking about something that delays. I will deal with inquiries a little later on, when I come to the question of wages.
We found ourselves upon the demand that it is in the interests of the State that the mines of this country shall belong to the State and shall be controlled and managed by the State. How are you going to have great electric power schemes unless you get control of the mines? If the State is to have the opportunity for dealing in a large and national way with the proposed power and light of the future then it must, first get hold of the mines us the foundation rock upon which to do so. May I say in connection with the very serious mining crimes that if the Prime Minister can tell us that he is prepared to nationalise the mines of this country it will enable us to make an appeal to the miners in a very much different manner from what we shall have to do if the mines are to continue as the property of private owners. To appeal to workmen in the name of the State is to touch them in their most vital spot, their native patriotism. If you would allow us to appeal to the workmen to withhold doing anything in the form of the industrial action policy because it was the property of the State and on behalf of the State, we should be able to be
infinitely more effective than any appeal that can be made to them if the concerns are to be allowed to continue in the hands of and under Show control of private individuals. The Government has a splendid opportunity to show to the miners that they are really in earnest for direct reform.
The miners propose that they shall have a Mining Bill in this Session of Parliament to give them a six-hour shift instead of an eight-hour shift. That demand is put forward with great earnestness and much seriousness. The miners think that the time has come when six hours is a sufficient working shift for men who are engaged at this grave, dull, monotonous, arduous industry, for the mining industry is a highly dangerous industry. No matter what you do it will always be a dangerous industry. Winning coal is a war on nature. You have to fight nature every time and every time you attack her she will strike back. The record of the loss of life and injury to limb, year after year, in the mines of the United Kingdom, despite ail the skill of this country, is an appalling record. The very last report presented by the Chief Inspector of Mines declared that there were 1,408 fatal accidents in and about the mines and quarries, causing the loss of 1,451 lives. Of these accidents 1,355, causing the loss of 1,395 lives, happened in mines, and as if that were not sufficient the Chief Inspector puts in this paragraph, "The year was happily marked by the absence of any great disaster." No civilised State has a right to send men into a danger zone of that character for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary for the national welfare. It is as cruel to send miners into the mine for a longer time than is absolutely necessary is it would be for a general to send his troops into No Man's Land without reason. When we make the appeal that we shall have a six-hours' shift we base that appeal upon a high humanitarian ground and upon the right of men who risk so much to have at least the most favoured treatment that a civilised State can give them. I appeal to my right hen. Friend the Prime Minister to make it quite clear as to where he stands on this question, because it is a very serious proposal put forward by the Minors' Federation of Great Britain, and it is part of the programme which he will be asked to discuss. It would be a short Bill, and it could be
done in an afternoon. All that we should want would be to move to delete eight and put in six, and I am certain that if this House of Commons see this problem as my colleagues and myself see it we should have no difficulty in prevailing upon the House to give this Six Hours' Miners Bill a first place in this new Session of Parliament.
In addition to that the miners are asking for an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act. These are all root grievances which must be redressed if there is to be peace. The Minimum Wage Act was an experiment. I recall many of the speeches made in this House against that Act when it was introduced, but it has been found in practice to be a most useful instrument for the avoiding of difficulties between employers and employed. It is, however, incomplete, and it is unjust, and therefore we ask for an amendment of the Minimum Wage Act. There is a Section in that Act which says that the independent chairman, in fixing the minimum wage of each class, must have regard to the wages of that class. Unfortunately, almost every independent chairman in the land misdirected himself upon that and gave a minimum wage below the average earnings of the class. The Miners' Federation say this, and say it properly, that the Minimum Wage Act ought to be amended to read that the average rate of wages in a class shall be the average earnings for that class. There is nothing very startling about it. It is only asking the House of Commons to say in direct language that the minimum wage shall be the average of the class. If my right hon. Friend today will give us a clear promise that the mines shall be nationalised, that the Eight Hours Act shall be amended, and that the Minimum Wage Act shall be amended, it will, I am certain, encourage the Miners' Federation of Great Britain to [Hon. Members: "Oh, oh!"] It is a powerful body, a body that must be dealt with quite seriously. If these demands are just, they must be granted. I quite agree that they must be argued, and I am endeavouring to put the case here this afternoon. I believe not only that the case is arguable, but that it is a very just case, and I say to the Prime Minister, in view of the great coal crisis that we are faced with, that this is the time of all times to deal in a root manner with root problems. It is because I think
it is only tinkering with this industrial unrest to set up committees and machinery for dealing with the matter that I venture to invite him to give us a declaration on the nationalisation of mines, on the amendment of the Eight Hours Act, and on the amendment of the Minimum Wage Act.
I was very impressed by the Prime Minister's declaration that we must have some regard to the cost of production in this country. Unless we have, we shall disable ourselves in competition in the neutral markets. I am quite aware that economic murder means economic suicide, and that we cannot damage our industries without damaging ourselves, but if the League of Nations is to be effective the League of Nations will do a great deal through the establishment of an international labour charter to correct any disadvantages which the industrial life of Britain may suffer in competition with the other countries of the world. Organised labour in Britain cannot be expected to take a low standard of life for the sake of international competition, and I hope that it will not be asked to do that. I hope it will be made clear that so far as we are concerned we are going to make use of all the power that the League of Nations can give to us by the creation of the international labour charter, under which uniform conditions will prevail in the industrial world, whether the workmen be upon the Continent or in this country. No one knows better than the leaders of organised labour in this country that the real test of the prosperity of an industry is its output or production. I wish the employers recognised that also. [Hon. Members: "They do!"] No; for if the employers recognised that they would be much more wary before they reduced workmen's wages because they were earning good money. What is our experience? In this great scientific age, when some genius discovers a scientific instrument for production, the employer introduces it into his undertaking, as he has a right to do, but if he finds in practice that the workmen by the use of that machine or instrument are able to earn a very big wage he does not content himself with the profit that he is going to make by his increased output, but he reduces the workmen's wages, and thereby the workmen are discouraged from giving output or production. If we are going to deal with this question of industrial unrest, and if this nation is to have the highest production
that it is possible for us co-operatively to produce, then the employers must worry much less about high wages and short hours. They must not, indeed, make the mistake of thinking that low wages and long hours mean prosperity. Rather must they concentrate upon production and upon output, and if in the operation they are able to give to the workmen high wages and short hours, then we shall be able to solve part of this problem of industrial unrest at the very root. It is because the Labour party finds no provision in the King's Speech for dealing in any direct manner with these problems at the root that we have placed this Motion down on the Paper. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be asking for time. The workmen's experience in the past has been this: They have been in no undue hurry, but their patience has been exploited. If the Prime Minister suggests the setting up of any machinery, is he prepared to make the result of the inquiry and the decision of that machinery retrospective—dating back? That is very important. Workmen as a rule do not object to inquiry and investigation, but they will not be consenting parties to the setting up of an inquiry which is going to delay a settlement, and therefore if the Prime Minister can make it clear that in any proposal he is going to make the inquiry will date back and that it will be made retrospective, that, I assure him, will be a point of influence on the minds of those who have these problems to deal with.
The Prime Minister made a very serious and grave attack upon those workmen who have been leading the policy of direct industrial action and causing lightning strikes. May I tell the House of Commons that the trade unions of this country are in favour of constitutional action. We are here as no advocates or supporters of the policy of down tools. No one realises more clearly than ourselves that that is a policy of disaster. While I have always been an advocate of the right of workmen to strike, I have always held that the workmen's right to strike must always be given to them because it is the only weapon that places them at last upon an equal platform for negotiating purposes with their employers. I have always said that strikes, like war, must be a last desperate resort. But I do hope the Prime Minister, in addition to condemning the down-tools policy, or the direct action policy, which means stoppage without notice, will not forget that the workmen
are being incensed in this country by reading, as my right hon. Friend said last, night in his speech, of profits made in many instances, and on purpose to put himself right with the British working classes it will be essential for the Prime Minister not only to condemn the unwisdom of the policy of down tools or lighting strikes, but also the injustice of anything in the shape of the profiteering which has been experienced in recent years. The workmen look to the Prime Minister to be just and fair in his criticism and they will not consider that his criticism is just if on the one hand he condemns in a wholesale manner the working classes and has no word of complaint to make about people who by their conduct and the enormous profits they have made during recent years have given great driving power to those who have been advocating strikes rather than negotiations between employers and employed. I venture to submit to the House of Commons that this Session of Parliament ought to be a Session set apart for legislation of a purely social and industrial character, and it is because the Prime Minister and his Government have made no provision in the King's Speech for giving us any direct legislation that it has been ray duty to move on behalf of the Labour party this Motion, which, if necessary will be carried to a Division.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In seconding this Amendment, I recognise that the problem and the time are far too serious to attempt any debating points, either from this side or that. I would be tempted to criticise at some length the Prime Minister's speech on Tuesday, but I feel I shall be acting with the sense of the House if I recognise straight away that mere debating points are useless at a time of crisis, and I have no hesitation in saying, with a full sense of responsibility, that, serious as has been the industrial trouble in the past, the difficulty with the miners, the railwaymen, and the transport workers at this moment is so serious that this country may be plunged at any moment in one of the greatest, industrial upheavals that it has ever known. There, I approach the question in that spirit, and with a genuine desire to contribute something towards the solution. It is useless for any Labour leader to get up in this House and utter mere platitudes because it pleases the House. That neither helps the Government nor helps the cause.
In approaching the question, I lay down two general propositions. The first is, that however strong the trade union movement may be—and it is strong—however powerful the trade union movement is—and it is powerful—it is not stronger, more powerful or more important than the State as a whole. In other words, whilst we must be prepared to fight and defend our rights as trade unionists and workers, we can only defend those rights when they are consistent with, and in harmony with, our position as citizens of the State as a whole. That is the first proposition I make. The second one is, that we have no right to substitute industrial action for our political disappointments. We may disagree with the verdict of the electors. I disagree. But we are compelled to accept that verdict in any democratic government. Whilst I would have no hesitation in leading a strike for political or industrial freedom, I would not strike at any time, or lead a strike, against the considered judgment and decision of the people as a whole. The Prime Minister in his speech laid down what, in his opinion, were the causes of industrial unrest, with many of which I agree. He said unemployment was one, and he accurately depicted the horror and dread of unemployment, not always, be it observed, because of sufferings to the man himself, for the working classes of this country will often themselves bear any trial, but it is the fear and terror of what becomes of their family that haunts them more than anything else. The Prime Minister perhaps was not aware, when be talked about the fear of unemployment, that at this very moment there are a million men and women out of work. On the 16th January this year there were 537,000 men drawing unemployed pay, and at this very moment there are over 430,000 women. After four years of war, when these men and women have sacrificed what they have sacrificed, worked as they have worked, can you wonder at the feeling of horror that exists when there is a million of them out of work within a few months after the Armistice was declared?
In that connection, unfair advantage is being taken. Let me give one simple illustration. The unemployed benefit of the Government is a certain amount. Often employment is offered at considerably less than the unemployed pay, or, in
other words, a sweated rate, and I have cases here which, if they are challenged, I can give to the House—scores of cases where young women have been offered half the amount in wages that they are receiving in unemployed pay, and then, because they refuse to work under these sweated conditions, their unemployed pay is stopped. No one can pretend that the Prime Minister is responsible for that because obviously he knows nothing about it, but someone must be responsible. The Government must be responsible. When men and women realise this and tell their friends, can you wonder at the discontent and unrest that exist? But the most significant omission from the Prime Minister's causes of unrest was that of profiteering. I us examine the mind of the working man and woman standing last year in queues waiting for margarine—[An HoN. Member: "Four hours!"]—and finding the price of margarine going up and up. Then the chairman of the Maypole Dairy Company comes to his shareholders and says, "I am pleased to declare a dividend of 225 per cent." That is £2 5s. on every £1. Now what I would put to the Prime Minister is this: When the working classes read that, can you wonder that they are in revolt? That is the kind of thing that causes discontent. Can you wonder at the state of Lancashire? For two years the Lancashire cotton trade was on short time. For two years the Lancashire cotton operatives were earning less than they ever earned before, and yet, during that period of short time, last year the average profits in the cotton trade in Lancashire were not only higher, but were equal to 45 per cent. on the total subscribed capital. The working classes, I submit, are entitled to draw their own deductions from that fact
Therefore I want to submit to the Government that they themselves must firmly face the fact, and say that, so far as the Bolshevik on the one side is concerned, they will look upon him as an enemy to the State, but equally they must be prepared to say that the profiteer who will take advantage of the nation's difficulties is equally dangerous to the community. In other words, the balance of the Government must not be a bias on one side or the other, but must be fair as between both parties in this particular connection. I would therefore suggest that the Government should first recognise that there
is too much secrecy in dealing with disputes. I would infinitely prefer the facts of every dispute to be published, because, after all, the British public when inconvenienced are entitled to know who is responsible. The British public when they are being held up are entitled to know who is responsible. The British public have a peculiar sense of trying always to be fair with all parties, but they cannot be fair unless they know the facts, and I would strongly urge that the Government must insist in all these cases on full publicity on both sides. It must not be a statement in behalf of the employers; it must not be a statement on behalf of the Government, but it must be a statement equal and fair to all sides, regardless of who they are. Secondly, I submit that they should themselves insist upon the immediate putting into operation of what is called the Whitley Report.
5.0 P.M.
Let me now try to point out to the House for a moment the different circumstances under which we are living to-day. When I myself worked on the railways, the railway companies did not even recognise the right of a trade union leader. Less than four years ago the railway employés were not allowed to discuss with the employer the kind of clothes they were to wear, although they were compelled to wear them, because it was held they were matters of management and discipline. The working classes to-day ought at least to have a share and a voice in the affairs that concern their daily life. I believe it is a good thing for the employer to have the benefit of the experience and the every-day knowledge of his own workmen. I believe it is a good thing for the workmen to have the benefit of the experience of the employer. That is why to-day we as a trade union are insisting upon at least making some claim for a share in what is called the management and control of our daily affairs. If I were asked to put my finger on one spot more than another that is a cause of the unrest, I would say it is the spirit in which concessions are given. Let me give an illustration. The forty-seven hours came into operation on 1st January. It was recognised, after negotiation, that forty-seven hours was a fair thing; but the very day and hour it came into operation, before the worker had been consulted or was able to ask anything about it, a notice was posted that the five minutes which had been allowed for forty years to all men at
six o'clock in the morning or one o'clock to wash their hands was to be immediately taken away. What was the impression created? It was as if you had been conceded £1 and someone was determined to make it 19s. 11¾d. That is the kind of thing that spoils the affair and creates in the mind of the worker the suspicion that he is always being "done down." You will never solve this problem until you restore confidence between both sides. My difficulty has always been, not so much to defend an agreement, as to convince my side that we were not being had by the other. Until you remove that kind of thing you will never touch the root of this problem. Let me give one other illustration.
The forty-eight hours was conceded. For years there had been an allowance of fifteen minutes for the men to take a meal within eight and a half hours. Hon. Members of this House know that London last week was held up by a strike, a dispute, and inconvenience was caused because this miserable fifteen minutes to have a bit of food was taken away immediately the concession was made. What I do submit to employers themselves as well as to the Government is that it is this kind of spirit that destroys, and lenders good feeling absolutely impossible. Let me point to one other factor—that is, the delay in settling disputes. When I tell this House that there has never been an industrial strike yet in which the men went back to work on the same issue on which they came out they will, I trust, understand the situation. It is one thing to get the men out on strike; it is an entirely different matter to get them back. Immediately they are out new issues crop up which render the position almost impossible. What is the situation even in the railway world to-day! This morning—and the public will have to know it sooner or later, so I may as well say it now—this morning my own executive were faced seriously with what happened yesterday—the House may as well know the facts.
On 6th December last we made an agreement with the Government. Part of that agreement was that we should settle the hours question, and that all remaining matters should be immediately investigated by a committee. That, I repeat, was an agreement arrived at or, 6th December of last year. Some railwaymen said, "No, we ought to have the lot." I said, "That is unreasonable'. There are
difficulties which have to be considered. The Government are prepared to consider them; are prepared to investigate the matter. At least give them a chance." On that plea they agreed to wait. Yesterday we met. We met, be it observed, when the whole of the railwaymen in the country were expecting a settlement. Imagine our amazement when yesterday afternoon we were solemnly told that only eight days ago were the railway companies even informed that they were to have any voice in the business at all. They said frankly to us, "We are not prepared with our case; it is too difficult at this moment, and it has to be investigated." These are the kind of things which cause trouble. One member of my executive, a man who gave three boys to the War, and who last year would have gone himself to the War, and would have shot any man who obstructed, got up indignant at our meeting this morning, and said, "I would strike to-night against this treatment." What is the real explanation of it? After all, the Government must answer. The Prime Minister is aware that in December the Secretary of State for War made a speech at Dundee, and intimated, for the first time, that it was the Cabinet's decision to nationalise the railways. For fifteen months I had been a member of a committee appointed by the Government. Railway managers were on it, and Government officials. The first intimation we knew of the decision of the Government in this matter was the speech of the Secretary for War at Dundee. The railway companies were alarmed. They said, and rightly said: "After all we are the trustees for £1,350,000,000 of capital, and surely on the glib statement of a Minister we ought not to hand over this property without knowing something about it." The result was when we asked them to negotiate with us they immediately said: "We do not know anything about the matter, we are not responsible, and you must go to the people who are responsible." Therefore I say what the Government have to do in this matter is to clearly recognise that when a responsible Minister makes a statement it must be the considered policy of the Government. I draw a moral from it, namely, that so far as industrial disputes are concerned the quicker they are handled the better for all concerned
I come to another point. It is one of those things where again the Government
are not exempt from blame. My right hon. Friend beside me pointed out with eloquent force that for two years—for four years as a matter of fact—those who wanted to strike had always been able to prove that their weapon was more effective than ours. I have stood, and stand to-day, for conciliation. I believe that the best means of settling industrial disputes is around a table. But when the working classes are enabled to point out that they only get their demands by striking, it renders the position of those of us who stand for conciliation very difficult indeed. I would put this proposition to the Government. If the demand of any section, whether it be railway men or miners, is in the considered judgment of the Government wrong on Thursday, it cannot be right on Friday merely because the men have struck. Naturally the very impression created by the method is, first, that the Government are not fair to the case of the men, or, secondly, that the Government do not know their duty and do not know how to govern. Therefore I say, and say it with a full sense of deep responsibility, that those of us who have stood for conciliation have found ourselves in a very difficult position owing to the policy which has been adopted in recent years. I frankly admit that one of the problems that we have to face is the unfortunate belief that there is an unlimited amount of wealth in the country. The war is largely responsible for that. It is no use disguising the fact that large numbers of the working classes, who were told that it was impossible to concede a few millions to old age pensions or social reform and found money poured lavishly without stint for years, have got the impression that there is an unlimited amount of wealth in the country.
I know, and know well, that Russia is the best answer to that fallacy. I know that normal wages are to-day a hundred times higher in some parts of Russia than they were three years ago. The spending power of those wages, however, is even less than it was before. So far as we, the workers, are concerned, it is not the amount of money we receive that matters, but the spending capacity of the money. Recognising that, I want the Government clearly to keep in mind that the present basis of the currency, and the artificial nature of the currency, the present inflation, are all things that must tend to unrest, because if the working classes get an advance of 5s. to-day and in a few weeks
time find the cost of living going up 6s., they feel that they have merely got it into their hands with someone always waiting to take advantage of the situation. My last point is that I want the Government not to consider the interests of the big trade unions alone. I know all too well that it would be within the power of my union and myself to force conditions that would be suitable to many people, but which the weaker section of the community could never obtain. I recognise that this would be wrong. I never hesitated all through the time I was negotiating the War bonus to admit it was the most vicious system imaginable, because the old age pensioner, the widow, and all those people who did not have a powerful union to back them up, suffered. Surely, if the eight-hour day, or a maximum working day of six hours or any other is given because of the power and influence of one trade union to force it, the Government ought to recognise their obligation and legalise it by establishing it for all industries! If it is possible for a trade union to force by its power and influence a minimum wage, is it too much to expect that the Government would recognise their obligation to the State as a whole? I believe that these are the best ways of meeting this problem. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, if we are to have trouble, it is much better for the whole position to be focussed in this House of Commons. I at least want to bring it within this atmosphere. I want this House of Commons to face the situation, and I would therefore say to the Government, first—you yourselves should give the utmost publicity to every side of the case, and deal with the reactionary as you would the Bolshevists, and recognise that you must not rule out a case because it appears unreasonable. Your duty is to be firm, and you cannot be firm unless you are just, and you cannot be just until you have examined carefully and dispassionately every claim. I would say to employers—recognise the changed circumstances; recognise that the working classes are no longer going to be treated as "Hewers of wood and drawers of water." Recognise that all glasses have unstintingly given of their lives and treasure during the last four years. A country that can produce the heroism and sacrifice that we have produced ought to is made a country worth living in for such men and women. I believe, Sir, that the next few months
will be our dangerous period. I believe the next few months is the transition period between what I call abnormal and normal conditions, and I believe it will be the testing time. I want the Government to recognise their responsibilities by being as fair to the worker, and no fairer, than they are to the employer. I want them to recognise that they were returned to power to create a new England, and it is up to them to see that they redeem their pledges. I also want the working classes to realise first that if there is a genuine attempt to redress their grievances, if there is a spirit of toleration and earnestness on the part of employers, they have to recognise their responsibilities as well. If that spirit that has carried us through the anxious period of four years can only last for a few months, I at least will not be apprehensive of the future, whatever it may be.

Major TRYON: The House will welcome the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for the Labour party, because both of them are men who take a moderate and a wise view. I think, however, it is exceedingly unwise, at a time like the present, to omit to state that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery was not long ago the special Labour adviser of the Home Office upon these questions. Perhaps it is very modest of the Labour party not to mention that at a past period when things went wrong it was a member of the Labour party who was the special Minister appointed to deal with Labour questions. Therefore, I feel if the right hon. Gentleman brings this forward it is in a sense an attack upon himself and some of his colleagues. I want to say how much I sympathse with a great deal that has been said by the two previous speakers, and I am not here to make a party speech. I realise what an extremely strong point the right hon. Gentleman opposite made when he said that it is the greatest possible mistake to give after a strike what you might have a few hours before given by negotiation. I agree with every word of that statement, and I agree that we must seek a way out of Labour troubles by conciliation and peaceful methods. I think, however, when the country reads this Amendment that it will not have the effect which the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken seek to get from it. This is a new Parliament, and the country expects a great deal from it, and yet the first act of the Labour party is not to help
the Government but to pass a strong, and I think, an absolutely unjust criticism upon the proposals of the Prime Minister. This Amendment says:
But regrets the absence of any mention of definite proposals for dealing with the present causes of industrial unrest.
Have hon. Members read the King's Speech, for there I find definite proposals? It says:

That the gifts of leisure and prosperity may be more generally shared throughout the community is My ardent desire.

That is exactly what hon. Members are asking for. [An Hon. Member: "It is a pious opinion!"] Then there is a passage which says:

You will be asked to consider measures for effecting a speedy increase on a large scale in the housing accommodation of the people.

Are the Labour party prepared to say that that has nothing to do with unrest? I think there ought to be a speedy scheme for better housing, and it is doing great harm in the country when the people read the Debate to find that the first thing they will read from the Labour party is a sweeping condemnation of the whole programme of the Government. I think, in their own interests and the interests of those they represent, the Labour party would have been better advised in saying, "These are things we can help the Government with. This is a proposal for better housing, and we will help you because you are trying to deal with unemployment.'' It is absolutely inaccurate to say that the King's Speech, as is stated in the Amendment, provides no means for dealing with unrest. I come forward as a strong supporter of the proposals of the Government and I regret that the Labour party should have made such an unjust attack. What we want is conciliation, negotiation, and a settlement of disputes peacefully, but there happens to be another body in the country who do not want them, and who are doing their best to create disturbances and bring ruin to the country in order to build up their new schemes

You bring up an Amendment put forward by the Labour party suggesting that the Government schemes are all nonsense and that there is nothing in them, and that is unjust to the Prime Minister and to the House, and it is a course which is likely to cause unrest in
the country. I think the Labour party would have been better advised if they had said, "These are things we will come forward and help the Government to pass," instead of saying, "There is nothing in the King's Speech dealing with unrest." What are the dangers Can anyone doubt them? We are faced with two alternatives—one is a solution by law, order, and Parliamentary action, and the other, is a most dangerous alternative. This Amendment discredits Parliament and the programme of the Government, and to my mind it encourages extreme courses. We have already seen one of the most unfortunate instances in our history, that of the police strike. We have seen electricians turning out lights at the Albert Hall. Proposals have been made to build great power houses from which electricity will bring light and power into our towns and villages. The extremists look on these centres as future political power houses. They propose to use them to coerce the country, to cut off the current, and by force to compel England to adopt a policy that England has just rejected at the General Election. We are not going to give way to that. I claim for Parliament that our work here should have a fair hearing and a fair opportunity, and this Amendment is not giving Parliament a fair opportunity. We have heard of proposals that the land should be nationalised, but that means that the returned soldier would never have a chance of owning the land of his country. [Hon. Members: "Oh, oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but that shows that they do not understand their own proposals, and it seems to me a pity that they do not understand them. If you nationalise the land, of course nobody can own it, and the soldiers coming from the War who desire to own land will be obliged to go to Canada and Australia, where they encourage the private ownership of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody owns it now!"]

I am not surprised to find that hon. Members opposite do not like discussion of their own proposals, and I do not wonder at it. The Labour programme was put before the country at the last General Election, and a prominent part of it was the nationalisation of the land, and there was also an unlimited promise of everything to everybody. I have heard of £3 per week promised in agricultural districts and £6 a week for shop assistants in the towns, and how is all that to be
raised? They suggest it should be raised by taxing the land. You begin by abolishing the land owners and then you propose to tax them, and now the party which holds out these wild promises claim that there is unrest. With all these political dangers for the nation ahead of us I am astonished that the Labour party has not said to the Government, "We will help to get these things, and we will not discourage the whole of your proposals at the very beginning of a now Parliament." I do not think the nation realises how much is at stake. For hundreds of years this country has governed itself and has succeeded as no other Government has done.

There are people in this country who want to discredit Parliament and run it down before it has been heard. A few people in the Press try to discredit all Members of Parliament before this Assembly has had an opportunity of carrying out its promises. Personally, I would welcome help from the Labour party in order to see these things carried out. In conclusion, I have only one or two suggestions to make. When these programmes are put forward by the miners I should like to see exactly what they are and what they are going to cost and how far they can be met. I should also like to know whether the people are going to be better or worse off after there has been a great rise in the price of coal, or whether a rise can be avoided in any way by better machinery. But, above all, let us have publicity. Nothing could be better when there is a dispute than that the great jury of the whole nation should try it. Then let us try and raise the wages and standard of some of those who are not able to strike. I notice that the Labour party put up two men to advocate the cause, one for the biggest vote and the other who represents the union where there is the second largest block of votes. There are people, however, who cannot get higher wages by strikes, and I hope there are many who prefer not to strike. I would, therefore, join the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in advocating tie claims of many men who are far worse off owing to the increased cost of living and who deserve consideration from the State. I wish we could get some balance of the fair and just rewards of labour—better wages, shorter hours and cheapness—and then, having got it, I should like to see the whole energies of the nation devoted towards organising the production of the nation as a whole on a planned scale, in order to make those
wages when the men have got them better and better by reason of their ever-increasing purchasing power.

Mr. SIMM: It is not my intention in rising for the first time in this House to offer any criticisms on the speeches which have been made by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I want to do a somewhat bold thing. I want to contradict the Prime Minister. Yesterday it was advanced, and it has been advanced again to-day, that the unrest in the labour world is due to-unemployment. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is wrong for once. Where is the unrest manifest? In the first place, in the coal trade. Does he suggest that there is grave danger of unemployment in the coal trade? In the second place, there is unrest among railwaymen. Again, does he suggest that there is danger of unemployment among railwaymen? Thirdly, there is unrest among shipyard workers. Does he suggest that there is danger of unemployment among shipyard workers? All these industries ate busy. All the coal that we can get for the next fifty year? is already mortgaged, and ships are wanted in abundance for a very long time to come. There is no danger of unemployment so far as the railways are concerned. We must, therefore, look elsewhere for the causes of discontent. Is it the outcome of social conditions? Is it the outcome of economic pressure, or is it a condition of mind produced by something from outside these things altogether? I am disposed to believe that it is a condition of mind. A friend of mine came back from Petrograd about four months ago. He was in gaol in Moscow five months ago, and he is very lucky to be here now. He told me that when the Spanish influenza was prevalent in this country the Bolshevists in Petrograd assured him that Bolshevism was the Eastern influenza and would spread all over Europe. In some measure the late Government are to blame, because two-years ago they sent from this country to Russia a member of the Government who got slightly infected with influenza of that order. Mr. Arthur Henderson, who wanted. I believe, to be the Government himself, failing to put the world right from Petrograd, is now trying to put the world right from somewhere else.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) laid it down that there must be some great force behind all this unrest. I happen to have been
a trade unionist for nearly thirty years, and I spent the first eighteen years of my life in a miner's cottage. I have lived all my life among working people, and I challenge anyone—and I have many Friends upon the other side of the House—to demonstrate or to prove where meetings have been held in the country in support of the programmes that are being placed before the Government and the nation. Yesterday we had a telegram sent from one great organised body to another organised body sitting at Southport. The Transport Workers said, "We, the railwaymen, the miners, and the transport workers combined, would be irresistible." I suggest that there is a very great danger there, and it is well that the Labour party, which is really on its trial, should mark what is transpiring. If certain things transpire in this country, it is because they have failed in their work. Mr. Keir Hardie was an old friend of mine, and he taught the doctrine that if you want to mend conditions it is not by strikes, but by means of Parliamentary power. What is transpiring now? There is growing up a force which is demanding direct action. The Parliamentary method, they say, is far too slow, and things cannot be done in that way. It is up to the Labour party to demonstrate that the method which brought them here is not an impossible road to a solution of our difficulty. I go further and say that if those who believe in direct action are the heads of the Miners' Federation, the railway workers, or the transport workers, and they are responsible for making war upon society by calling men out, they will be just as responsible for the miseries which ensue as the Kaiser is responsible for the miseries brought upon the world by the war of the past four years. The leaders of the Labour party ought to exercise the utmost power they have got to keep things steady.
This Amendment contends that the Government are making no definite proposals to meet our requirements. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby very properly pointed out that wages do not cover everything. We often say that good health is the richest of all possessions, and so it is. The Government propose to make provision for good health. A good house to live in is surely a valuable thing in the way of a fuller life. The Government propose to deal
with that. Further, we have proposals for land settlement. Probably we are hoping for far too much from that. The Prime Minister before now has pointed out that in the course of this War we have done a very wonderful thing. We are producing now nearly four-fifths of our needs. If we multiply that we shall soon become an exporting nation. I believe in the fullest possible use of the land of our own country, but I beg the Government to keep their minds upon one thing not in the Gracious Speech, and that is a larger and fuller use of the wonderful resources of our Colonies. One cannot walk through London without meeting young men who have come from outlying lands to help the Mother Country in France and elsewhere. They may admire London, and they may see the relics and antiquities of this country, but ask them if they desire to remain here and not one in a thousand will say "Yes." They all want to go back to the larger freedom that the Colonies give them. There are some causes of unrest in our social system, and we can never get a perfect system, but we have now the most advanced programme of social reconstruction ever placed before this House of Parliament. Much has been done in the past few years, and much can be done, not by strikes, but be co-operation, in the next four years.

Mr. ACLAND: I have been asked on behalf of the small group of Independent Liberals to which I belong to say a few words on this subject. I have one preliminary thought very strong in my mind, and it is that the House has a very great deal to congratulate itself upon in having as leaders of the Labour party such admirable spokesmen as the right hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House from this bench in the last few days. As long as labour is led by men of that kind, and as long as they are returned to this House to voice labour, the task of the Government in dealing with labour matters ought to be very much facilitated. I cannot forget that the Prime Minister did his very best at the election to make it impossible for those men to be returned. The position produced by the action of the Government in the election has made matters very much more difficult for them in dealing with labour unrest than they would have been if the Government had been otherwise guided. I happen to enjoy the friendship of several members on the workers' side of the Agricultural
Wages Board, of which I am a member, and even before the election they were certain that the date at which the election was thrust upon the country, and the circumstances of the election, would make it more difficult for them to restrain the violent elements in their unions than if the election had taken place at a time at which they would have considered it much more fair to consult the country. The election was run more and more on stunts, such as making Germany pay for the War and no Conscription—one of which the Government know that they cannot enforce and the other of which they will not enforce. That, unhappily, produced a feeling of irritation, exasperation, and unrest, which was increased when the Prime Minster made his tremendous onslaught on labour and labour leaders just before the poll. His Government has been guilty of what must appear to be a breach of faith to labour in having no representative of organised labour at the Peace Conference in Paris. Therefore it seems to me that under the circumstances in which this Parliament has been returned there is a very special duty resting on the Government to devise a positive policy for avoiding the industrial unrest we are now liable to, and for putting that policy in the forefront of their programme this Session. That is emphasised by the composition of the House at the present time. The Labour party and the small party of Independent Liberals to which I belong are extraordinarily unrepresented in view of the votes cast in their favour, and at a time when you have undoubtedly a vast majority of the thinking working men caring more intensely about the actual carrying into practice of the doctrines of the League of Nations than any other matter concerned with foreign affairs. We have seen in the last few days the very eloquent and fine tributes to the principle of the League of Nations uttered by the Prime Minister absolutely received in silence by the occupants of the benches behind him.
The Prime Minister the day before yesterday went into be causes of the unemployment which already exists and which no doubt we shall feel more definitely when the present scale of unemployment donations comes to an end. He said that one essential of unemployment was lack of confidence, and he put as a second cause of the unemployment that we shall not be able in our great industries to restore full employment if cost remain as high as it is
at the present time. He said truly that we had before the War something like a thousand million pounds employed in our export trade, that that trade was conducted very often on a narrow margin of profit, a small change one way or the other might give the trade to someone else, and that if the trade went to other quarters hundreds of thousands of men would suffer and very bad unemployment would prevail. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to concentrate on one factor, which I suggest is not the only factor of the possible high cost of production, namely, the increase of wages. I want this afternoon to draw attention to two other factors in high cost which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to, but which I think are very pertinent to the present position.
In the first place, there is this fact that in certain industries the Government is undoubtedly preventing imports which would otherwise take place and for which there is shipping available, so as to give certain sets of employers a chance of keeping up the prices of the goods they have to sell. It was, I believe, recently decided that the only things in regard to which there could be relaxations in the matter of import into this country were lawn mowers, and then someone went to the proper Department of State with the suggestion that he did not want them brought in as he was making them himself, and he wanted to be treated as other people were being treated in the matter of the prohibition of imports. It was explained to him that nobody at the Department knew there was anyone interested in lawn mowers, and, therefore, it seemed to them that no harm could be caused by allowing them to come in freely. If they had known that anybody would be interfered with in selling his lawn mowers at high prices it would never have been suggested that lawn mowers should be allow to come in from outside. That is a matter which ought to be investigated and fully reported upon, Undoubtedly it is the general feeling that by the prohibition, of foreign trade prices are being unnecessarily kept up in the interests of small special rings of manufacturers in this country.
Then there is a more serious point. The Government seems, quite naturally to desire not to lose money on their war purchases. No one, of course, disputes that the Government had during the War to make contracts for the purchase of
goods in advance, as they could not take the risk of not having the necessary supplies of food and materials for munitions and other industries in this country. Of course, enormous stocks are left on their hands, and the question is how those stocks are to be worked off. The principle which seems to be followed at the present time is that the Government must keep up the prices of the stocks they hold in order not to incur loss in disposing of what is left on their hands. I believe that that doctrine as a whole is fundamentally wrong. It would be far better to come to the country with a clear confession of the position and say, "It is necessary for us to lose, it may be, from £10,000,000 to £50,000,000 on certain transactions in regard to which we had to take risks while the War was on. Loss is inevitable, but let us cut that loss rather than try to keep up prices indefinitely to the general consumer and so restrict the development of trade and employment in this country."
There were several instances given in a very interesting letter from my late colleague, Mr. Runciman, which appeared in the "Times'' this morning and which shows that if there were open markets it would be possible to sell tea at 4d. per lb. less than is now charged for it, that the farmers would be able to get maize at 40s. per ton instead of 70s., that wheat prices would be brought down 28s. Then there was a speech by the Governor of the Gas Light and Coke Co. in which it was pointed out that the artificial keeping up of shipping freights by the Government on coal which is necessary for the making of gas was responsible for keeping up the price of gas to the hundreds of thousands of consumers of gas in the Metropolis who depend upon it for cooking and for other purpses. The question of linseed oil and petroleum would also bear looking into in the same connection. I think it would be much better to cut the loss and let prices come down than to keep up prices in order that the Departments interested should not lose. It may be asked what would be the effect on the Exchequer Would it not be very serious? I am reminded of a saying uttered by Mr. Gladstone many years ago when somebody asked him what would happen if the country were made sober and there was no revenue from drink. His reply was. "Give mp a sober and prosperous country, and I shall have no difficulty in finding revenue from taxation in order to
finance the public services." I believe that if we show the population, and the working classes especially, that there is a real turn in the level of prices in the direction of coming down to more normal conditions, it will do far more to restore confidence, and to restore employment and prosperity than is likely to be effected on the other side by the fear of industrial unrest. There are now many hundreds of thousands of people who have denied themselves during the War and have not purchased clothes. They found it very costly and thought it was patriotic not to purchase new clothing during the War. Now they are faced apparently with an indefinite continuation of the high prices of clothing. I believe the Government have purchased the whole of the wool crop now coming into this country, as well as that which will come in in 1920, and will come on to the markets in 1920 and 1921. Are we to pay a higher price quite indefinitely for another couple of years for our clothing because the Government has made war purchases of Australian wool, no doubt at a very high price, and refuse to cut the loss and to let manufacturers get on with their ordinary business?
There is another important point which has been made to-day. In the Prime Minister's speech the other day—I hope it will not be the case this evening—no mention was made of profiteering. There would be, of course, no point whatever in liberating the goods which the Government holds unless at the same time measures can be taken to prevent great firms from continuing to make the enormous special profits which seem to have been undoubtedly made during the War. The Government is perhaps so much a profiteer itself that it has a certain fellow-feeling with other profiteers. There is no doubt at all you will not be able in any sort of way to convince labour of the soundness of the arguments used by the Prime Minister unless this question of profiteering is dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman said that the shortening of hours combined with the reduction of output, while maintaining wages at the same level, must put up prices, and that high prices were the most fruitful cause of unemployment. That is true as an economic argument, of course, but it is only true in an atmosphere where the economic argument applies. There are dozens of instances which working men know perfectly well, where there is
now, and apparently will be for the future, no free play for economic forces. Already twice this Session reference has been made to the profits made by Messrs. Coats. And I say seriously to the Government that as long as workers have cases of this kind before them they simply will not believe that in obtaining shorter hours for themselves they will increase the price of the product they are concerned in producing, and decrease employment owing to the decrease in purchasing power of other people. Coats's declared a dividend of 30 per cent. after paying Excess Profits Duty, and carried forward a sum equivalent to another 30 per cent. for another year. The workers are bound to believe that if they succeed in getting Messrs. Coats to employ two shifts instead of one, or three instead of two, or four shifts of six hours instead of three shifts of eight hours, there will be no increase whatever in the price of the product, and consequently no diminution of employment. It is clear in that instance, as well as in others, that the price fixed bears no relation whatever to the cost of production or of labour. These people undoubtedly fix their own price at the highest rate which they think the public will pay, and if workers succeed in cutting the hours down it will not make any difference in the price to the consuming public. It seems to be an essential point of the policy which I hope the Prime Minister will unfold this afternoon and put before the nation, that when dealing with industrial unrest profiteering must be definitely dealt with. Instances of this kind which working men know perfectly well ought henceforward to be made absolutely impossible of occurrence.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the profits made by Messrs. Coats in the United Kingdom are a very small proportion indeed of the whole of their profits, and that consequently the figures he has quoted are no guide at all?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: The profits made elsewhere must then be worse. I am not saying that Coats's are not worse profiteers perhaps in other countries than here. It is not the only case. There is the case of margarine and the Maypole Company. It is perfectly well known that enormous profiteering has been going on and will keep on going on. It is no use trying to persuade the working classes that the arguments they are following are unsound
and uneconomic unless the Government can really tackle that question. I have had some connection with working people in agriculture and so on, and I have had connection with farmers and been on all sorts of Committees. I know that they do not mind being less well treated than they think they should be so long as they know that others are being treated in the same way. What produces the feeling of unrest and disquiet is that other people are being allowed, to do a certain thing which they are not being allowed to do. I happened to be chairman of the Forage Committee which had to fix the prices for farmers hay, and I know that the farmers did not mind being "jewed" over their hay so long as they knew that others were being "jewed" over it too. Although they were getting very fair prices that is what produced a feeling of unrest. It is quite impossible to expect working men not to grasp for the highest wages they possibly can so long as they know that the employing firms are getting enormous profits and that no proper steps are being taken against them on that account.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then they want to be profiteers, too.

Mr. ACLAND: Quite so. It is absolutely human nature. They do want to be profiteers, too, in many cases. Therefore I say you must deal with the worst cases of profiteering by the big firms if you are to deal with the profiteering which undoubtedly certain classes of the working men will wish to indulge in so long as they see it going on in other classes on a far huger scale than anything they dare contemplate for themselves. Reference wan allowed to the Mover of the Amendment to the land question. I want to make only one observation about that, namely, that it is rather ominous and is a effuse which may well contribute to our industrial unrest that we do not find in the Gracious Speech any reference to a proposal which, as it seems to me, must underline all the proposals connected with the land that are mentioned in the Speech, a proposal with regard to a change in the basis of the compulsory acquisition of land. I believe that that underlies housing, that it underlies land settlement, that it underlies reclamation and that it underlies forestry. Unless you can sweep away altogether the old basis of the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts as the basis
upon which land shall be acquired compulsorily for public purposes, you will never be able to get these great industries and reforms set up at a price which will be fair to the people. I know that this is a matter on which many working men who have worked on local bodies feel strongly. They have found by sad experience that when a public body has had to get land for some public purpose the rates have had to be burdened two, three and four times as much as there is just need for. They are watching and looking for this change, and the fact that it is not mentioned in the Speech is rather ominous in that connection.
Another point worth thinking of, and which I hope will be examined by the body which is going into this question on behalf of the Government, is that undoubtedly industrial unrest is due very often to the men not getting sufficient holidays to enjoy the leisure they are now getting properly educated to enjoy. I have never been able to understand the reason why it is always held that the brain worker needs at least a fortnight or a month or six weeks or eight weeks' holiday in the year, while the manual labourer hardly needs any at all. For instance, it is only this week that at last we are introducing into agriculture the habit of the Saturday half-holiday. I believe that many strikes are due to the fact that men are restless because they are tired. They strike very often simply to get a bit of a holiday. I believe that if employers generally would recognise that the workers who work for them with their hands need holidays and are quite as worthy of holidays as any other worker, or as they themselves, who would always regard themselves as extremely badly treated if they could not get their six or eight weeks away in the summer months, there would be more human feeling shown in industry and a great deal less of the feeling that the manual worker is still to be treated merely as part of the machinery of industry and not as a human being having his own wants and needs just as much as the employer.
Another suggestion I would make is that there should be in all these dealings with labour a much better system of publicity on the part of the Government than there is at the present time. I believe that if we were now to decide to spend, say, a hundred thousand pounds on a proper
system of publicity on these matters, it would be a sum far better spent than some of the millions which have been spent on publicity during the War. We want to know far more than we know at present the real facts, say, about the cost of living. On the Agricultural Wages Board, where this matter comes up constantly, we cannot get at the facts. The workers always have one set of figures given by the Board of Trade and the employers always have another set of figures given by the Board of Trade. There is very little guidance and we have to go into the whole thing de novo ourselves. I therefore commend the suggestion that far more information should be given to the public of facts such as the cost of living, and that far more information should be given to the public about the actual facts of these industrial disputes. One read the papers during the recent tube strike and found it extremely difficult to find out what the real facts were. The Board of Trade published one agreement which seemed to show that the men were entirely wrong, and two or three days afterwards another version was published which put a different complexion on the matter. A publicity department connected with the Labour Ministry, giving full and impartial information on the facts, would do a great deal of good in the restless situation we are now in. Another suggestion I would make is with regard to the delays which the right hon. Gentlemen preceding me both emphasised—delays in settling disputes and having them dealt with by the Government. There is an impression in the country now that very little can be done or is done by this Government without the direct action of the Prime Minister. I do not say that he encourages that suggestion; I do not think he does. But one sees in the Press constantly the suggestion that nothing can be done so long as the Prime Minister is in Paris, and that when he comes back everything will be put right. That is hopeless. We know that he is doing most splendid work on behalf of the country in Paris and that he ought to get back to that work and continue it. I believe that a good deal of the unrest might disappear if it were known that he was perfectly willing to delegate full powers to other people while he is absent from England on peace work, and that there was a Committee of the Cabinet definitely entrusted with power to act and to act quickly, in his absence, and which would publish from day to day their
decisions in those matters that must come before them I do not think he would lose in the least by that. Anything that can be done to give greater publicity and greater expedition to the decisions of the Government will be a great gain at the present time. We are glad that the Prime Minister is going to speak on this subject. I am certainly one of those who agree with those who moved and seconded the Amendment that more specificmention night have been made of the very definite proposals which undoubtedly the Government must make if this industrial unrest is to be allayed, and I for one shall divide in favour of this Amendment, and shall accompany them into the Lobby.

Mr. SEXTON: I wish to follow the ordinary custom that new Members should appeal for the indulgence of the House. I am afraid I have incautiously infringed some of the privileges of the House, and I trust, therefore, that if I should again incautiously stray from the path of Parliamentary virtue I shall have your assistance, Sir, and hour guiding hand to get me back to it. I have listened to this discussion with considerable interest. As an interested onlooker for many years I have often felt an irresistible desire to shiver a lance with some of the doughty champions in this Chamber. I find myself now, after five Parliamentary attempts, present and taking part in the game. The discussion of this subject seems to have taken a peculiar turn. With the exception of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, all the speeches have dealt entirely with the question as if it were a mere passing event. I shall endeavour to prove that this is an altogether mistaken idea, that it is not a made passing event at all, but that it is the accumulated wrongs of half a century that are finding vent in these labour disputes to-day. It is true that the War, with its associations and its intensity, has undoubtedly intensified the spirit of the people. There has been great strain upon the community, and there has also been a great strain upon those of us who, like myself, were compelled by sheer force of circumstances the support war, of which we had previously abhorred the very mention. I was born a Radical. It was bred in the bone. My great-grandfather was hung from the shafts of a cart in the '98 rebellion. Up to the very eve of the War I was anti-war, anti-big Navy, anti anything for the destruction of life, but I was
in the House and heard Sir Edward Grey make his statement, and from that moment I thanked God we had a big Navy. Since then I have, taken, I hope, one man's part in endeavouring to bring this War to a successful issue, and, in the words of the Prime Minister, to make the world safe for democracy. I trust they have. I hope the world is safe for democracy. Our next task ought to be to endeavour to make democracy safe for the world. There is some danger that that will not be so, and I am just as anxious for the one as for the other.
May I say something about causes and effects of the existing unrest. We have been subject to attacks from constituted authority, from King and Parliament down to trade unionism, from men whom, fanatical though they may be, I am prepared to credit with perfect honesty. I know some of them—the John Macleans and the Gallagers. They are honest fanatics. They are wrong, absolutely wrong, but our social conditions are responsible for it as much as anything else. My quarrel with them is that they would up-root constitutional society and constitutional methods with an alternative which will make the cure exceedingly worse than the disease. Supposing they were successful, what are they going to put in the place of organised trade unionism? To be permanently successful they must either set up the same kind of machine they are now so vigorously denouncing or drift into anarchy or dictatorship. The last phase would be worse than the first, for the mob which they style democracy is a bigger tyrant and a greater despot than the capitalist system. Therefore, when we hear these people talking about breaking up constituted authority, when we hear them indulging in beautiful perorations about liberty, equality, and fraternity, we want to know how they are going to carry them out without some system of organisation of a responsible character. There never can, in my opinion, be absolute equality. There can be equality of opportunity, but there will always be an aristocracy—not a hereditary aristocracy, but an aristocracy of intellect which will rule in spite of all. Although these men may be very heroic, the singing of the "Red Flag" and "England arise, the long, long night is over," and the carrying of resolutions that the time has now arrived is not going to settle the social question. You want something more sub-
stantial than that. I am proud to see the attitude that is taken up by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas). I do not think these people see what they are up against. They are up against a system which is the growth of centuries, managed by men with private enterprise in their very blood, for it becomes hereditary, practically speaking. The system may be wrong. That it is wrong I admit. But it has been constitutionally created, and wrong can only be righted in a constitutional manner. That its application is cruel I admit, but it is scientifically administered for its own benefit whore the cruelty of the democracy is only directed against itself and is absolutely ignorant and unconscious of what it is doing.
I have heard many statements made here as to the cause of the unrest. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech, and, like an hon. Member opposite, I am afraid I must contradict him. He told us it was not very easy to find the real causes of the unrest. I should like to take him back with me for a few years in history. We are told we must be constitutional. I agree. I am a constitutionalist, and I am anxious to help constitutionally. The unrest to-day is not a question of days. It is a question of years, and Parliament must accept its share of the responsibility. Let us take, for instance, the Trade Union Act. It was originally created, I believe, as the result of the Chartist movement. It was alleged to be for the benefit of trade unionism, but under it the employer could obtain for 1s. a return of the finances of every trade union in the country and could know exactly how the workmen's organisation, stood at the end of the year. I admit it gave us the right to strike against injustice, but then along came the iniquitous Taff Vale decision, which took from us the right to strike. We were then told by Parliament and by Law Court that we must not act unconstitutionally, and we took their advice and attempted to set up a political Labour party. Then along came the Osborne Judgment and deprived us of the privilege of creating a political Labour party. Luckily it has not succeeded. The evidence on these benches is quite eloquent in that respect, and I hope to live to see in the next Parliament an overflow even from these benches. From the industrial point of view, again, we have first of all the Employers Liability Act, which was supposed to compensate workmen for injury, but before a workman
could secure compensation he had to prove patent defect in the employer's machinery or orders given by a responsible person, and under that Act not 5 per cent. of the accidents were ever entitled to claim compensation. One of the Clauses stated that if we did not give notice to the employer within six weeks our case was prejudiced and we were out of court. May I give my own personal experience? I was injured and the front of my face was smashed in by defective machinery. I was unconscious in the hospital on and off for over six weeks. I appealed to the employer at the end of the six weeks, and the Act of Parliament was thrown in my face. I was too late and I was out of court and, having no trade union behind me, I was compelled to accept employment at 1s. 6d. a day less than I previously got. I went to work, working night and day—broken time—a casual labourer. I happened to earn 15s. and when I went to draw my 15s. I found half-a-crown stopped out of it for the cab which took me to the hospital when I was smashed by the defective machinery of a good, kind, Christian employer. Things like that frequently occur. We have the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is a marvel of legal legislative ingenuity how not to do anything. The first Compensation Act we had stated that an injured man was entitled to 50 per cent. of the amount he earned in the firmunder which he was injured, and that was interpreted to the casual labourer that although he might work for two employers, the first employer for five days in the week and the second employer on the last day of the week, if he was injured en the last day of the week he was only entitled to 50 per cent. of the wages for the one day, instead of 50 per cent. of the six days' wages. Take, again, the question of accidents on docks. The dock labourer and the casual labourer of this country owe a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) for the magnificent work he did in this House on their behalf. I want to give one or two examples. Through the presence of vested interests in the House of Commons when the extension of the Factory Acts took place, the word "ship" was deliberately left out of the Factory Act, and when the Workmen's Compensation Act came to be applied, it was found that a ship was not a factory. At any rate, it was not a factory unless it was tied alongside the quay, and
only that side of the ship which was tied to the quay was a factory. The other side was not a factory. The result was that when a man was killed on the factory side of the ship by a sling of goods that come from the non-factory side of the ship, there was no compensation allowed. The man who was driving the winch, working for both sides of the ship, in one case had his finger smashed and he got compensation, but on the other side a man lifting the sling from the off side which was not a factory had his arm torn out and got no compensation. I can remember the hon. Member for the Scotland Division in Committee putting the case of the winch man and saying that for the purposes of this Act he would have to be split down the middle and one side would be a factory and the other would not be a factory. All these things have been going on for years, and accumulations like these are really responsible for the iron having entered these men's souls and making them despise constitutional laws and prefer unconstitutional laws. Then we had the question of too old at forty. A men would not be employed if he was over forty for fear the employer would have to pay compensation. Again, we had in 1907 a non-contentious Bill laid upon the Table of this House which would have given the piece-worker, the casual labourer, the legal right to demand documentary evidence of the number of tons he had handled during the day. From that day to this we have never heard a word about that Bill.
I listened very patiently to what the Prime Minister said in respect of the fear of unemployment. He told the House that during the War there was no unemployment, and there was no fear of future unemployment. But we have unemployment, and the Government themselves have acknowledged that there is unemployment by plying unemployment benefit for thirteen weeks. That is one of the ways of not doing things at all. A few weeks ago I know that there were men who were in receipt of unemployment benefit and who, owing to the action of a few men, were automatically put out of work. The unemployment benefit received by these men amounted to as much as 36s. a week, and there were three times as many men put out of work by the action of the few men than there were men on strike. The irony of the whole business was that the men who were
receiving Government unemployed pay were paying a levy to keep the other fellows out on strike. If that is not an example of attempting to feed a dog on his own tail, I do not know what is. The fear of unemployment is a real one. Those of us who have had to suffer from it know how great it is. We were told by the Prime Minister that force would be put down with a strong hand. I regret very much that he used any language that would appear to be in the nature of a threat, and I suggest to him that it was very regrettable that that statement was made in the House, for it will have an effect opposite to the one which was intended by a statement of that character. I want to quote his words if I can: "Anyone who attempts to drive unfair bargains with the community will be fought vigorously by the Government." Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin), I would ask, Why was not that principle applied to gentlemen who now hold high offices in the confidence of the Government? Will he apply the same principle to the men who are holding up the nation by making unfair bargains with the community? We were told in a burst of generosity by the Prime Minister that there was great progress in the housing question—that a magnificent number of doors and windows had already been purchased. What is consolation! But we cannot live in doors and windows. We want houses to accompany them. The men who are holding up the housing problem of this country to-day, and who are making excessively bad bargains for the community, but good bargains for themselves, are the men who monopolise the land of this country and make the housing question difficult. I wonder if the Prime Minister will apply his principles to gentlemen of this character!
This industrial unrest is not a passing phase; it is the accumulated wrongs of half a century, wrongs which are being exploited, I admit by those whom you call the Bolsheviks of trade unionism. The Government has a great opportunity, and I hope they will the advantage of it. It is no use to say that these things existed before. We know they existed. That reminds me that quotations from eminent men seem to be fashionable, and particularly from Americans. May I be permitted to give a quotation from the "Pious Editor's Creed," by Russell Lowell, as a reply to those men who say that these
things have gone on in the past and that they have been created by custom. Russell Lowell says:
Oh, Lord and Master, not ours the guilt;
We build but as our fathers built,
Behold Thine images how they stand
Sovereign and sole throughout the land.
Then Christ sought out an artisan,
A stunted, hungry, haggard man,
And a motherless girl, whose fingers thin
Pushed from her feebly, want and sin.
These, set He, in the midst of them,
And, as they turned back their garments hem,
For fear of defilement, 'Lo,' said He,
'These are the images you have made of me.' 
The Government has an excellent opportunity, and there is not a man on this side of the House who will not help the Government to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister. In the words of an old, reverend, dead-and-gone Parliamentarian who stood at that dispatch box many years ago, "The flowing tide is with us"; but I would respectfully remind the Prime Minister that there is more than one tide in the twenty-four hours. The tide may change. It may ebb and flow and the next flow may not be as favourable. Let him take the opportunity now at hand, and if he does he will find no greater supporters than the men on this side of the House who wish, in his own words, "to make this nation a nation fit for heroes to live in."

Mr. REMER: May I crave the usual indulgence as a new Member if I break any of the honoured traditions of this House? May I also state the pleasure it gives me to follow my old townsman, the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), who has shown, as every Liverpool man knows, such a fine spirit throughout the War in helping his country in every way he possibly could. He has mentioned that he had had five fights before he obtained a seat in this House. I have obtained one by my first fight and the only similarity between the two positions is that we both had to leave our native city in order to obtain a seat. I should like to say, first of all, that I am speaking now as an employer of labour. I must confess that my first reason for becoming a Parliamentary candidate was because I thought it a vital necessity to the country that employers of labour should come to this House and state their views on labour questions. I have come because I think it the duty of business men to come—not because I have very much time to spare from my business—to
state business men's reasons on the leading topics of the day. The term "business man" includes, or should include, every wage-earner in the country. Just as I claim to be a working man, having to work as hard for my living as most people, so I think every wage-earner should be educated in the fundamental truth that he is as vitally interested in the success of industry as anyone else. On that ground I think it the duty of wage-earners to think earnestly before they deal strenuously with the affairs of industry.
Before I proceed to refer to two or three of the questions which have been discussed by Members of the Labour party in this House I should like to say a few words to those employers of labour who, I think, are sitting on my right hand. It is absolutely necessary that they should learn their lessons also. We must recognise the fact that if the employers of labour had done their duty in the past trade unionism would never have existed. We must realise the fact that the labour agitator thrives on the parsimonious employer. I am quite sure that we all realise that the days of sweating and of low wages are gone for ever, and that we must pay our working men well, generously and honourably. I would go a little further and say to any employer of labour that anyone who pays his workmen badly is a fool. It is not a paying proposition. He will lose money by it. Therefore you are not paying your workmen high wages with a philanthropic object. You are simply following out what is really a paying proposition. I listened on Tuesday, yesterday, and to-day to the speeches delivered, in the hope of receiving some intelligent guidance from representatives of labour as to what is going to be a solution of this labour unrest. I have listened to platitudes and generalities, but not one word have I listened to which I could really say has been any solution whatever of the great problem with which we are faced. I listened to, and I have since read, the speech which was made by the Leader of the Opposition on the day of the opening of Parliament, and I may read one statement which he made:
We have reached a stage when the working classes of this country will refuse any longer to continue to be treated as cogs in the machinery for mere profit-making purposes.
We are all cogs in the profit-making machinery, and I claim that it is the duty of all of us, employers and employed, to be cogs in that great profit-making
machinery, which is another way of adding wealth to this country. Not one speech has been made which has given any intelligent solution of the problems in front of us.
The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) told us that there were a million men out of employment. He did not tell us, nor did he suggest, how we were to find employment for these men. He told us a long story about the Maypole Dairy Company, and the profits which they have made out of margarine. He told us, what is well known to Lancashire people, of the profits made by cotton manufacturers. That does not do any good. It only causes doubts in the minds of the working men. Personally I do not mind admitting that I have made good profits during the War.[An Hon. Member: "Shame!"] I will say this to Labour Members opposite. Everyone of my workpeople knows it, and everyone of my workpeople shares in the profits which I have made. I have at my works a profit-sharing scheme, and a percentage of my profits is distributed among my workpeople. I am absolutely convinced that one solution of this great problem lies in a national scheme of profit-sharing on a national basis. I go further than that. I am in favour of a scheme of that kind being made compulsory throughout the country. I think that on these lines we have one real solution, at any rate, of the great problem which we all desire to solve.
There is one item in the programme which was put before the electors at the last General Election, on which the Prime Minister pledged himself. That was the encouragement of production. I think that he has also said that in order to solve Labour unrest we must do the best which is possible for us to encourage production. The best way of doing that is to give every possible encouragement to employers of labour, and to people who are in business. I am sure that if we give encouragement such as they never had in the past to our manufacturers it will lead not only to higher wages, but it will lead also to decent conditions and happy surroundings. I feel very strongly, as every Member of this House must feel, upon the housing problem, but it is worse than useless to start schemes of this kind unless we are prepared to give encouragement to our manufacturers, so that they will be able to find employment for the workers and pay them decent wages. So
far as past Governments are concerned we are suffering, more than from, anything else in this country, from the parsimony of our ancestors. The parsimony of our ancestors was surely embedded very deeply in the hearts of most Government officials, and very deeply in the hearts of the Treasury, who do not seem to be very liberal in giving encouragement to manufacturers or even to working men, as far as that is concerned. I had the pleasure not many days ago of having an interview over a business transaction with the son of the present Prime Minister. He told me a story which I think will impress the House more than anything else as showing the way manufacturers are discouraged in every possible way in this country. He told me that when he visited South America or Mexico, in every town and city into which he went the British Consul, if he was not a German was at any rate a clerk in a German's office. That is a most ridiculous state of affairs. I have no doubt that Major Lloyd George has told the Prime Minister of the fact, and I am quite sure that such a state of affairs will not be tolerated in this country in future.
The second great reform which is required in this country is improved and cheaper transit by road, rail and canal. I am glad to say that on this question the Labour party, so far as the district which I represent is concerned, have associated themselves with other parties, and we are trying to do what is possible to improve the transit facilities in Staffordshire and Cheshire. I am glad, to hear that to-morrow a conference is being held at Stoke-on-Trent at which Unionists, Liberals and labour representatives will try to ascertain what is possible to improve the shocking state of affairs which exists in that portion of the country. I do not quite agree with the Prime Minister's statement, that because the profits of the railway companies had been £50,000,000 in pre-war days, and labour had since gone up by £90,000,000, therefore there must be a deficit of £40,000,000. I do not admit that cheap labour necessarily lowers cost of production. I saw in "The Times" of yesterday a letter which stated that high wages mean higher production, and it was stated also in that letter that that was an elementary principle of political economy. I do not know whether it is elementary or advanced. I am quite prepared to admit that I know nothing about political economy, but I will say this, that it is a
very remarkable fact that Henry Ford, who pays the highest wages in the world, produces the cheapest motor-cars. I am quite sure that in the long ran the highest wages are the cheapest wages, as they lead to the cheapest production.
7.0 P.M.
As an illustration, to prove that I am not wrong, the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) knows as well as anyone else the conditions of labour in our local docks, and he can confirm my statement. The local docks and the Garston Docks are not under the same management. One is under the local Harbour Board, and the other is under the London and North-Western Railway. In pre-War days the wages of the local men were 6s. per day and the wages at Garston Docks were 4s. a day. You would say that the Garston Docks were run cheaper than the Mersey Docks. That was not so. I know from actual experience that the men we had under the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were the cheapest men by a long way. They got through, three times as much work. If you are going to get the best skill and the best workmen, you must pay the best wages possible, which has never been done by the London and North-Western Railway Company. If business men are going to find employment for their workmen, the best way of increasing production is to remove the restrictions which exist on trade. It is not a good thing that restrictions should continue which interfere with business in the many ways in which they do. I know something of the working of Government Departments during the War, and I am quite sure that they have been very expensive and have not added to the wealth or profit of the country. In fact, one of the controllers with whom I am associated has told me that his control has resulted in a loss. That was only tolerated because of the exigencies of war. We have to realise that the trade which we are going to have in the near future is a very different trade from that which we have had during the past three and a half years. We hope we are going to start exporting to the world. I would ask the House to think whether we find that our business men, in trying to find employment for the working classes, are fit to compete in the world's commerce. I beg to submit that the workshops of Britain to-day are in a higher state of efficiency than they have ever been in
the history of this country; that the mechanics are more skilled than they have ever been; and that the finances of our factories is much sounder than it has been for many years. I would ask you to think what do we like. I am quite sure we like the power to buy our raw material in the best market. I have spoken to many men who sell raw material, and they all tell me the same thing, that if they were allowed to import at the present time they could import, owing to the reduced rates of freight, at a very much lower rate than the controllers are selling, and it is the essence of folly for the Government to keep the prices too high.
I think it was the right hon. Member for Platting who wanted to know what was being done with the shipyards and shipping and with the other Government organisations which have gone up during the War. I do not know what is the intention of the Government so far as that matter is concerned, and I can only tell the House what is being done at the present time by the Controller of Timber Supplies, with whom I am associated in business, with a number of saw mills which exist in this country. He told me, and I think it a very wise decision—I had an interview with him not very long ago—that he was going to sell these saw mills to the various traders at reasonable prices. But he made a very vital stipulation, which I think every employer of labour will agree is vital, that these saw mills must be carried on, and must not be closed down; but that they must continue to find employment for the working classes. I ask the House to think how it is possible for an employer of labour to carry on these factories if, as has been suggested from the benches opposite, imported goods are allowed to come in to compete and to wipe out all the profits which anybody could possibly make in this country. I suggest that here, in the restriction of imports, either by taxation or restriction, is one of the ways in which you can best find employment for the manufactories of this country. I am a very strong Tariff Reformer and always have been, and I think that herein a strong tariff is one of the ways in which the Government could enable the factories of this country to find employment for the working classes. I may say, in passing, that some mention has been made of the Whit-
ley Report and the Whitley Councils. In the Saw Mills Council, of which I am not a member, I have been told that the employers put it to the labour representatives whether they were in favour of imported manufactured timber coming into this country to compete with their sawmills and throw men out of employment. The reply was that they were going to take Jolly good care that it did not come in. The House can rely on it that these Whitley Councils will be a very fertile ground for education for some of those labour people who stated, in their manifestoes at the last General Election, that they were in favour of universal Free Trade. I should like to say, definitely, that I am absolutely opposed to any form of State trading. I think it does not, as has been suggested, result in making a profit for the nation. What it results in is in making losses for the nation. I have seen some of the accounts of some of the State trading organisations which have gone on during the War, and fire still going on, and I know that they have resulted in grevous losses to the nation. They were necessary for the exigencies of the War, and we could not have done without them, but I am quite sure that the losses incurred are sufficient proof to this House that State trading is a very bad proposition.
I think there is another solution to all this labour unrest which has not been put forward anywhere. I do not think that anyone will forget the wave of patriotism which passed over the country during the last week of the General Election. That wave of patriotism was a tribute to the personality of the Prime Minister. I would like to suggest that that wave of patriotism could be repeated in another form. If there is one thing which we lack very much in this country at the present time, I think it is that we lack in religious life. I think it is a most deplorable thing that when we go to churches or chapels, to whichever we may go, we find empty buildings. I am not posing from a, religious point of view, but I think it is a bad thing for the nation. I would seriously suggest that the man who could rouse patriotic fervour could rouse religious fervour, and I would say that that man could teach, as I am quite sure the Prime Minister could teach, that our duty towards humanity means something higher than mere wages and mere profits, and that it means that we must treat our fellow countrymen better and have a higher standard of every kind.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Prime Minister intended to take part in this Debate himself. But he has been engaged in very important work, and, in addition to that, much as he was interested in the Debate to which he has listened, his view is that in principle it is not possible for him to add I anything to what was said on Tuesday, and he has left it to me, as representing the Government, to deal with this Debate. I should have been glad, for no one recognises the importance of it more than I do, if I had had longer time to think of the line which I should take to-day. But, after all, this is a subject which has been filling all our minds, and I do not think there is anyone who, during the last two or three weeks, has had more reason to have his mind directed upon this subject than I have. If I may say so, and I think it Is not out of place to say it, one of the difficulties of the present situation, for which no one is responsible, is that, by who necessity of the case, our Government must be divided. The great War is over, the Peace Conference is sitting, and it is obvious that if it is possible the head of the Government must be there; but at the same time the Government must be carried on at home. That adds much to the difficulties, and, indeed, it would be an almost impossible position if those who represented him hero did not know that when they act, as they must, on their own responsibility, they can rely on the support of the head of the Government. We have listened to-day to a very interesting Debate. This is a now Parliament, and I think, taking it all round the Debates show a new spirit. I certainly take the view that the speeches of my light hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment expressed very clearly the point of view for which those who sit on those benches stand, and showed at the same time are alisation of the actual position of the country, and a sense of responsibility for which I, as representing the Government, am grateful. But I venture to say that I think it is a pity that they have thought it necessary to move this Amendment. Not that I do not think that good is done by the Debate, but I would venture to express the hope that it will not be pressed to a Division.
I say that for this reason. We are face to face, as everyone knows, with a very difficult industrial position, and I think it would be a good thing if it were not shown that the very important body of opinion represented on those benches has already
come to the conclusion, without giving us much time, that the Government is not doing its best to deal with this difficult question. I cannot go much into detail, but the ground of complaint in the Amendment is that we have done practically nothing, not to deal with general social problems, but on questions of hours of labour and of wages. I do not think that is the case. We have not had much time. I would remind the House that one of the latest acts of the last Parliament was that this Government passed a Bill to fix wages at the present level for six months. A proposal of that kind I do not think had ever been made in the world before. It is an immense step in the direction of trying to prevent the evils which must come from the change of industry at the end of the War. That step was taken, and I should like every section of the House to keep it in their minds, by the Government with the full approval of the House of Commons, and, I venture to say, with the approval not only of Labour representatives, but with the approval of employers. For I should like the House to believe, as I do, that however great may be the difference between the two sections, that however much one or the other may be to blame, there never has been a time in our history when the whole community, and even employers as a whole, were more ready to agree with us, and with everyone in this House, that the men who are working in our factories and working in every form of manual labour, are entitled to a bigger share of the profits of that labour than they have got in the past, and that there is a real desire to give them as large a share as can be without drying up the productivity of the industries.
So much for that. But there is another thing which my right hon. Friends the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) and the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) dealt with, and that is the wages for the class that cannot protect itself by its big organisation. We have tried to deal with that. We have passed the Trade Boards Bill, and the Ministry of Labour has for a long time been really working hard to try to get organisations started which will enable a reasonable wage to be given to the same classes of people who, by the Minimum Wages Act, were recognised as being unable to protect themselves in that way. Well, that has been done. Now take the hours of labour. In the first place, the Government by giving an
eight-hours day on the railways which they control have taken an immense step forward, I remember very well the time when Mr. Richard Bell took part in the discussions in this House when some hon. Members looked forward to the time of a universal eight-hours day, and this is really an immense step forward. That is not all. The Government, through the Ministry of Labour, have been doing everything in their power that can be done by the Government in these big trades to get the lead given by the Government followed in other directions. The result of that is that already agreements have actuary been signed in many big trades in this country as to the hours of labour between employers and employed. That applies to more than 3,500,000 men, and negotiations at the same time are going on dealing with the larger bodies. In face of all this I do not think it is fair to the Government to suggest that in the short time we have been in office we have neglected what is one of the duties of the Government and one of the greatest problems we have to face.
Let me come to the general question of labour unrest. Everyone has his own version as to the cause of that unrest. With most of those put forward I am in agreement, but I would like to say at once that, however much importance may be attached to any one of those causes, there is a much bigger rock at the bottom of them than any particular cause, and this is a view which I have already expressed, namely, that labour wants a larger share of the good things which are to be obtained in this world. That is at the bottom of it. But leaving that aside for a moment, let us consider what some of the other causes are. I have had to consider this during some partial strikes which have taken place, and I thought that those were due to the relaxation of the strain of four and a half years of war, and I think everyone will agree that that was an element in them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) made one observation with which I entirely agree, and it is this: Could anything be more foolish than to yield something to a strike after two or three days which you refused before the strike took place? We are all agreed upon that. One of the causes of these partial strikes is due to circumstances arising out of the War. It is all very well for us now to say that the Government yielded too easily during the War. If you are to judge
properly in cases of that kind you must put your minds back to the conditions which prevailed at the time, and you must realise that we were fighting for our lives. Steps, of course, were taken at that time which could not reasonably be taken perhaps in time of peace. As a result of that I think that many of those engaged is labour organisations had the idea that all they had to do was to strike and that the Government would at once step in and that at all events they would get something as the result of the strike. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that that is an idea which has at once to be put down.
There is another cause. Both my right hon. Friends opposite spoke a great deal about profiteering, as did my right hon. Friend the late Food Controller. I think we have all recognised that one of the most fruitful sources, I will not say altogether of unrest, but one of the things on which those causes which encouraged unrest were imposed, was this question of profiteering. I do not suggest for a moment that there was not a great deal of it and there may not be a great deal of it now, but I do say with absolute certainty that there was no tenderness shown to profiteering by the Government, and that there was never in the world's history such determined efforts as we made to put down profiteering of all kinds in this country. I was rather surprised to hear my right hon. Friend, who was himself Food Controller, speak of this profiteering as if it were something we could have prevented.

Mr. CLYNES: I said it was because of the unnatural conditions on which trade was conducted in war-time.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not intend to say anything controversial, but there was no Department which made more determined efforts in that direction than the Department with which my right hon. Friend was connected, in his own time as well as in the time of Lord Rhondda. They were not unsuccessful, and if you compare during the War or even at this moment the prices of the food materials controlled by the Government and the prices of the same article in any neutral country or in the countries of any of our Allies, you will see to what an extent we did succeed in putting down profiteering. I go far further than that. The Government have controlled a very large part of the industry of
this country. That was done very largely by the Ministry of Munitions. At a very early stage in that Ministry—I think it was begun by Sir Hardman Lever, who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury—we had the costing system instituted, as a result of which prices were kept down by the Government to a reasonable figure, having regard to the cost of production. That affected materials, not only required for Government use, but also articles used for general commercial purposes. Then we had the Excess Profits Duty. Nobody will pretend that that was a tax which was in itself sufficient to prevent undue profiteering against the community. You can imagine, for instance, particular articles which are practically a monopoly. If these be a monopoly, then if you put on Excess Profits Duty all that happens is that the price is raised to give the producer the same profit, as if there were no Excess Profit Duty. We did not rely on that alone. We relied on controlling and fixing prices as well, and, taking it all over, there were very few articles on which there was so great a monopoly that the prices could be moved up and down in that way. I venture to say to the House that that was a tremendous weapon against profiteering. It not only gave the State an immense amount of revenue, but it had the effect of preventing to a large extent people making unreasonable profits. I can look at these things I hope not only as a member of the Government, but from a common-sense point of view. That is one of the slips which new Members will be pleased to see can be made by a very old one. What I mean is, I look at it from a business point of view. People point to the enormous dividends which are being paid, and to profits which are being made. I would ask the House to consider this aspect of the question. It is necessary to keep up production. If you are to keep up production to the full yon must pay a price which will enable the average factory to keep up its output. It follows inevitably that a factory which either by specially good machinery or by special skill can produce the same article at something below the average price, then that company will, in spite of the Excess Profits Tax, make very large profits which could easily be used in that way, although the average price was a reasonable price under ordinary circumstances. We say on that, while we want to stop profiteering it really is not the business of
anyone who is looking at this question from the national point of view to aggravate and exaggerate the conditions.

Mr. THOMAS: Does my right hon. Friend suggest by his definition that profiteering such as I have indicated was the exception and not the rule, because I desire to point out that taking shipping, steel, coal, railways, and cotton, there was an increase, and a substantial increase, amounting in the main to a hundred per cent. on the dividends as a whole and not isolated cases?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I should not like to argue about a statement of that kind on the spur of the moment. I think he is wrong, but I should like my right hon. Friend to realise this, that undoubtedly, owing to the excess profits, and to the fact that the manufacturers have to give so much of their profits to the State, they are left in many cases with an absence of working capital, which is going to be a real danger, while it must be remembered they are in competition with manufacturers in other countries who have not been subjected to such a tax. There is another cause of this unrest. I must say I was surprised to hear a statement made by the Prime Minister the other day, and which seemed to me to be very elementary, challenged, namely, that if you shorten the hours with the same wage and do not get more output the cost of production must go up, so that that of itself will cause unemployment. It is no good telling the working man that, if he has got it into his mind that the Government have been spending seven or eight millions a day on war, and why can they not spend a few hundred thousand pounds on improving their conditions. That idea is not confined to the working man. When I was at the Treasury I found every sort of claim being put forward on the same basis. It is almost useless to point out to people of that kind that those seven or eight millions were largely borrowed money. I for one have never tried, either at election time or any other time, to make our countrymen believe that a big expenditure of borrowed money, which created such an appearance of general prosperity, will not, sooner or later, have to be paid for. I am going to deal with two kinds of industrial disputes. Those with which I had to deal while the Prime Minister was in Paris were, in the
main, strikes by particular members of trade unions without the sanction of the leaders. I am sure we are all agreed that that sort of thing is fatal, and that in that way you will never get any possibility of bettering conditions for the workmen. How is that to be remedied! I am sure of this, and I say it to the employers as well as to workmen, that you will never get it remedied by trying to do away with trade unions and to destroy their power. It is not in that way you will get it remedied, because you must leave the min the main, to work out their own salvation, and in my belief, perhaps right hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me for saying it, that largely depends on the leaders. Some of the leaders of the trade unions have shown a splendid courage, but they have got to carry it still further. They have got to say to their unions, "You have the machinery to change us, but while we are there we have been appointed by you to represent you, and if you do not allow us to represent you you must get someone else." That is elementary.
We are all agreed about these unauthorised strikes, I think, but now I come to the more serious kind of strike, the kind of strike with which we are perhaps threatened now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) dwelt a good deal, in regard to the coal trade, on the point of view that if it were nationalised the employés would feel that they were not working for private interests, but in the public statement issued on behalf of the Government we have said we are perfectly ready to have that question, too, inquired into on its merits. My right hon. Friend Bays, "Well, but inquiry takes time." Of course it does, but if he belonged to another profession I do not think he would say that a man ought to be hung right away because it would take time to give him a trial. This is an immense problem, and it is really not a question of Conservatives, or Liberals, or Labour, or anything else—it is a question of trying to get the arrangement that will be best for the State in the long run. You cannot arrive at that in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman made another remark, with which I entirely agree, when he said that working men disliked inquiries because they often meant putting off what they thought just demands. I dare say that has happened in the past; but was there ever a case where real, careful,
thoughtful consideration was more required that a case like this? I am quite ready to say to the right hon. Gentleman now, on behalf of the Government, that so far as making retrospective any award which would ultimately be made is concerned, it would be perfectly fair, and we would be perfectly ready to do it, so far as that goes. But look at it from a bigger point of view. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), speaking of his own union, said that they were so strong that they could get terms which they would think right but which other people less strongly represented could not obtain. Yes, but it goes a great deal further than that. It is not merely that they can get terms which cannot be secured by other workmen in a less favourable position, but the terms which they get would very largely be at the expense of these other workmen. That is something we have to keep in mind.

Mr. THOMAS: I admitted that.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not notice it, but I am sure if he says so he did. I do not put our case one iota stronger than it was put by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that any trade union with that power must recollect that after all they have to use whatever power they have not for the good of their union but as parts of a great community. I do not put it higher than that. That is the principle on which we ought to go. I am not going into details of disputes which may never happen, but take the coal industry. Surely before you agree to any change which would on the face of it mean an immense increase in the cost of production you have got to consider what effect that will have, not merely on stopping the export of coal, which will affect the miners directly, but the effect it would have on every other industry as well, and in making the condition of the people generally infinitely worse than it was. It is the same in regard to the railways. An hon. Friend behind me made an interesting speech in which he said he did not agree that the figures the Prime Minister gave were accurate in regard to the great deficit on the railways. Ultimately, perhaps, I hope that better hours of labour and better pay may mean that with a smaller number of men the work may be able to be done, but in the meantime the figures given by the Prime Minister were not problematical but actual. That is the deficit at the present moment. How is it to be made up?

Mr. THOMAS: It is only fair that the public should know that the figures which the Prime Minister gave he gave to me as well at a deputation it Downing Street. I was able to controvert them then, and I challenge them now, so that the public may know perfectly well that I do not admit them in the least. I not only speak as the head of the union but as a member of the Committee appointed by the Government to go into the figures. I do not accept those figures, and I shall be able to prove, when the time comes, that they are not accurate.

Mr. BONAR LAW: If they are not, that surely proves the need for inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS: Do not hit the House misunderstand. A strike may be involved in this, and I am not merely trying to debate. If hon. Members do not understand the position outside, my right hon. Friend does, and he does not desire any statement of his to aggravate the position. We have never opposed are inquiry, so that, whatever may be applicable to the miners, we have cover opposed an inquiry.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite accept that, but my right hon. Friend meat remember that I was dealing both with his industry and with the coal industry. We haves got to consider not merely, so far is the mining industry alone is concerned, the effect of limiting the amount of coal, but we have to consider the effect on every industry alone every man who works in that industry. You must do the same with the railways, and that is all I say. The right hon. Member for Derby said the railways had the power to do this. I am going to travel on rather difficult ground, and I do not want to say anything that could seem to be provocative in the slightest degree. That is the last thing I wish to do. The right hon. Gentleman says they can get what they want. I draw, and I think the public draws, a great distinction between industrial disputes which try to get better conditions for the men by affecting the employers directly in the way of limiting their profits and disputes which aim at getting the same result by inflicting hardships on the community. I am sure the whole House will agree that there is a great difference. There are many new Members on those benches, and I hope they will give us, who very often will differ from them, an opportunity of understanding their point of view. I quite recognise what a representative of one of
these unions will say in answer to this. He will say, "That is all very true, but look at the struggle workmen have had to make to get their trade unions recognised in any way, to get any result from their attempt to get better conditions." He will say, "A partial strike always fails, and it is only by combination we can hope to succeed. We are pressing just demands." There is a great deal in that, but there is something in the other side, too. If a strike is really in its essence directed, not against the employer, but against the community, then, in the long run—I say this without any hesitation—it is public opinion that will decide, and in a case of that kind the Government must defend the community, and if they fail to do so somebody else must take their place. I hope there is nothing provocative in what I have said. I hope not, and with this I must conclude.
Among the causes of unrest everyone admits that there is a considerable element of people not who can cause it, but who, when it is started, fan it and inflame it and use it to the utmost for revolutionary purposes. Everyone admits that, but I think at bottom the strongest feeling of those who may be engaged in these strikes is the dread of unemployment and the belief that the way to avoid unemployment is to work shorter hours and all the rest of it, which really means a diminished output. We are going to have an, anxious time, and one of my hon. Friends said that the next six months will be a most critical time. I am sure of it. We shall have an anxious time, but I think we shall come through, and I do not forget—and I am sure no Member of this House forgets—that the men who perhaps may seem to be taking action against the whole interests of the community are the same men whose courage and steadfastness, with that of the other members of the community, enabled us to win the War. But I do say this, that one of the things which I thought would happen as a result of the War—and I think it is true—is that the great majority of the trade union leader shave recognised that that old idea of improving the conditions of workmen by doing less work is really fatal to the workmen as well as to the State. My right hon. Friend referred to employers who, when they get new machinery, are not content with the larger profit which the machinery itself gives, but immediately try to cut down the wages
because the men are making a little more. Nothing, to my mind, could be more fatal or more shortsighted I believe, in some respects the Americana work far shorter hours—some of them—with far higher wages, and are able to produce more cheaply, not only because the employers do not grudge the workers higher wages, but because the workmen think only of getting higher wages and they do the work.
In that spirit we shall come through. I do not think, looking at it as calmly as I can, that if we keep our heads there is a great danger of serious unemployment. Take, for instance, the miners. There is an almost unlimited amount of coal, and I believe there will be found work for every miner either immediately or almost immediately. The ravages of war have left tremendous gaps. For years to come the demand for commodities of all kinds will go a long way to prevent this danger of unemployment. That is certain. The only changes as I see them are, on the one hand, a lack of financial credit, and that is essential to business on a great scale, and it depends on the feeling everywhere in the country that money is something that you have got to look upon almost as the blood of the nation. The one other danger—and I say this with a pretty firm belief that I am right—is that employers, partly through the conditions of the War. are afraid to engage in new enterprises from the fear that is natural and inevitable that the present level of prices may collapse, and that they may be left with the materials produced at the higher cost. They have got to take their courage in their hands, but I can say to the House and to hon. Gentlemen on that Bench opposite that if you want to accentuate that fear, apart altogether from the question of shorter hours, the one way to do it most effectually is to give the impression that you are going to have labour unrest month after month in this country.

Major HARRY BARNES: A right hon. Gentleman who spoke to-night described himself as a member of a small band of Independent Liberals. If that description is right, I should rightly describe myself as one of a large band of Dependent Liberals. I am not ashamed of that description; I admit my dependence. I am dependent on that quality which has been described by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment as the
quality needed above all others to solve the present position—the quality of confidence. I am dependent in my confidence in the Prime Minister and the Leader of this House, and those, associated with us here believe that there does exist a genuine desire in this House to settle the problems presented before us by the hon. Members who form the Labour party. They have asked you to restore confidence in the country. I would suggest to them that example is better than precept, and that they can do nothing more to restore time confidence of the workers of this country than by showing their confidence at the present time in the Government. They can set an example if they will to night by withdrawing this Amendment, in which I do not believe they can persist after the speech to which we have just listened—a speech which breathed in every note of it the desire to come to a settlement which will be best for every interest and every class in this country. I would ask the hon. Gentlemen who sit on my right to have confidence in the Government, to have confidence in this House, and to believe that upon these benches sit men who, whatever they may call themselves, are here really with only one desire, and that is the desire for the welfare of the people of this country.
This House, I believe, has been described by some as a tied House. I think a better description of it would be that it is a free House. There appears to be some idea that the Coalition have pooled the liabilities of the Tory and Liberal parties and taken them over. That, I think, is entirely wrong. We start with a clean sheet. No doubt we shall accumulate our own indebtedness in time, but I believe the great quality of this House is that we come here with free and open minds, not prejudiced by anything that has taken place in the past, and open to consider every problem presented to us, with only one desire, and that is to settle it in the best interests of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby gave us an extraordinarily vivid glimpse of what he called the working-class mind, and I should like in a word or two to give him what I think may be a glimpse not only of my own mind, but that of hon. Members of this House who have been listening to him. I think he will agree that whenever in his speech—and no one can speak too highly of the moderateness of that speech and the
temper he displayed—the brought before the House a case of individual hardship, it was met at once with a sympathetic response. Whilst that is perfectly true, I think that at present at the back of all our minds is the feeling that the whole spirit and temper of labour in this country is not represented by the speeches to which we have listened to-night. There is this sinister spectre of what has been called the "Triple Alliance," and we feel, although the spirit displayed in this House has been admirable, that there is in the background this combination of great labour interests whose actions are not considered with regard to the general welfare of the country, but only with regard to the interests of those powerful labour sections. I think the right hon. Member for Derby and his colleagues will judge better the feeling of the House if they remember that fact.
Something has been said—and I think very rightly said—about profiteering. There is no doubt that cases such as that mentioned with regard to margarine do impress the working people of this country, but I think the Government must be given credit for what they have done in that direction. As a new Member of the House, it appears to me the Government have got a pretty tough job in front of them. Whatever they do is sure to be wrong. On the one hand they are asked by commercial men to relieve industry, trade and commerce of control. When they do that, then they are net by gentlemen, like Sir Leo Chiozza Money, who say they are letting loose the sharks upon the community. So that whatever they do they are wrong. I was particularly struck by two things which came out over and over again both in the speech of the Mover and of the Seconder of this Amendment—first of all the admission that the industrial unrest in this country is not so much a question of wages, not so much a question of hours, as an accumulation of individual grievances. We had that most vivid picture of the individual having him own particular contract set aside by the manager and the owners, and the wrong, hardship and outrage on manhood and dignity which is engendered and accumulated in individuals, and which wan put before us as being one of the principal causes of industrial unrest. The other thing was the insistence on delay as being one of the principal evils, because delay breeds
discontent and discontent disaster. I think it is in one sense true that employers have to bear a large share of the blame with regard to delay. I think it is equally true that the workers have to bear their share. But is it not true that there is also something in the organisation of their unions which must be looked to? Is it not clear that in their great dream of federating unions together until they reach this great federation which is going to impose its own will upon the community, that they have too great centralisation? They have denied to their own people the freedom their people are asking for. It is almost incredible the situation which existed in this country the other day. On the Clyde you had a great dispute. There were labour men of capacity and power, and on the other side there were the local authorities—men who have probably as much capacity as any men in this country—and there they stood watching each other, unable to settle because hundreds of miles away another set of men had the affair in hand. Surely something must be wrong there—that disputes which arise on the Clyde, cannot be settled on the Clyde, that disputes which arise in Belfast cannot be settled in Belfast, and that disputes which Arise in London have to distract the attention of the Prime Minister in Paris! There are men in this House with large undertakings, and I imagine they would think their business inefficiently conducted if they were continually distracted by the fear of having to settle disputes which have arisen in the first place between the office boy and the typist.
It appears to me that this question of industrial unrest is something like fire or disease which starts in a very small way, and which, if taken and isolated, can be kept down. It appears to me that what is wanted is decentralisation in the trade union organisation and in the administration of government. Things want to be settled on the spot. That is the real cause of the trouble inside the unions. It is no use pooh-poohing the question of the workshop steward and treating him as a Bolshevik. It is not true. What has given the workshop steward his place and power is the fact that men on the spot want to settle things on the spot, and I think the gentlemen who form the Labour party could contribute nothing more effective to the settlement of industrial unrest in this
country than by taking in hand the organisation of their own unions. I say that, holding the belief at the same time that there is no institutions in the world, after our own Parliamentary institution, of which we have more reason to be proud than the trade union institutions in this country. Whenever men in any part of the world have combined together to act for political purposes they have modelled their institutions upon the House of Commons, and wherever men in any part of the world have combined to improve their social conditions they have modelled their institutions upon the pattern of the British trade union, and I think we may be proud of them. It seems to me to be a dramatic situation in our national history that at this time those two great institutions represented in this House do appear at this moment to be coming into conflict. If they actually do come into conflict, nothing more disastrous has happened or could happen in the history of this country. We have at the present time the greatest opportunity we are ever likely to have to settle this great controversy, which must be settled, and one can only hope that the spirit which has been exhibited in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, may animate us all here to-night, and that the result of his appeal will be that Gentlemen who sit here on my right will not pursue this Amendment to a Division.
8.0 P.M.
I would like to say one word more on the question of the nationalisation of railways. The necessity for inquiry has been pointed out. Can the gentlemen who form the Labour party honestly tell us here that the railway men really do want to become the servants of the State. Do they really want to have all the railways put under national control? Is there no division of opinion? Is it felt that there is no other alternative between private ownership and State ownership? There is a very large body of opinion growing up that there is some other course that may be taken, one that appeals to me more strongly than ever. That is matter for an inquiry. That inquiry has been offered. It is an earnest of the Government's intentions. I would say that no better service to this country could be rendered by hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the benches here to my right than, under the circumstances, withdrawing their Amendment.

Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: The Leader of the House, in replying to the discussion, and in stating the position on behalf of the Government in regard to the Amendment put forward by the Labour party, made one or two rather significant statements and admissions. He said that the main cause, in his opinion, of industrial unrest was that labour wanted a larger share than they had had hitherto of the good things if life. We agree that that is the main cause. That cause has been fostered in the labour movement, not by men who have been described by some who have taken part in this Debate as Bolshevists. The feeling has been fostered in the labour movement, by men like the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, in going round the country and painting wonderful pictures and describing glorious visions that the people night have in their lives if only they would follow him, and vote him into power to bring about that new world. Another point that has been made was that the workers, if they are going to have fewer hours of labour and more wages, must not restrict output. I should like to ask the Leader of the House: Is restrict on of output only in be criminal when it is done by workmen m a factory. Is it only criminal in the case of working men if they feel that they are working too hard and as a consequence are likely to be unemployed very soon, to consider the situation, and take action; or is, it to be criminal also when we find huge manufacturing firms closing down their plant or joining as combines with other firms, and so having certain plants closed down and pays 5 per cent. dividend to the shareholders of those, plants, so that the steel plates, required for building ships will be restricted in output and consequently higher prices received by the shareholders in the steel companies? By the restriction of output in the one case dividends and larger profits are paid out of the other and the profits very largely increased. We have found that that exists on the Clyde—where all the labour troubles are supposed to come from. It is not so very many years ago that we found on the Clyde men out of the workshops and shipyards walking the streets idle one or two days a week, not because there was no work for them to do in the yards, but because the steel company of Scotland had closed down one of its steel foundries in. order to restrict output. By this restriction employers themselves were compelled
to bring plates from Germany. Then we had the cry about dumping and the necessity for Tariff Reform. The working man is not the only one who goes in for restriction of output. If it is to be criminal on the part of one, and if the working man is to be criticised, then his employer also must be criticised, and also be placed under the power of the Government, when he, in his turn, seeks restriction of output for his own particular benefit.
There was one significant part of the speech of the Leader of the House which was, I think, really an echo of the Prime Minister. That is where he said that if any section of the community is going to hold up the community the Government must stand behind the community and defend it. What is the community? If the men feel of come to the conclusion that they will not go on strike because of the interests the community, they will soon find another feeling growing up on the part of the employers all over the country, which is that they are refusing them their demands because they are not going out on think through their interest as members of the community. If the community itself is not going to regard the interests of the men who are working at these industries, then the men of these industries must only concern themselves with their own interests, and must fight, regardless of the interests of the community. We are hearing talk at the present time of a new work fit for heroes to live in, fit for the men who come back from the front. These, it is said, are going into a new world. In spite of this we find at the present time that there is in employment all over the country. We and engineering and shipbuilding employers immediately after the War entering into an agreement between themselves and the shipbuilding workers, after a period during which they have been told that this War had opened the eyes of the people of this country, and that never again would we have class hatred that formerly existed. But what has happened?
The very moment that the agreement to which I refer had been signed it was practically torn up as a scrap of paper by the shipbuilding employers. Notwithstanding their grievances the men never went out during the period of they war. To-day there are men working on the Wear earning wages and working under protest which are from ten to fifteen shillings a week less than they earned before the War
closed. Does that confirm the new spirit which is going to dominate this earth? Is that the new spirit which is growing up in this country? Is this what we were told by the Prime Minister, and also by other people during the War period, was going to happen? Then men on the Front Bench talk about unofficial strikes and unconstitutional action! Can hon. Members wonder that these men turn round and say that if the employers break their agreement that that agreement no longer exists between the employers and the unions, and that consequently they are going to take what action they like? If the employers break an agreement first, then no one can accuse the working men of tearing the agreement to shreds, and coming out upon an unofficial strike.
What has happened on the Clyde? A dispute has arisen in consequence of a demand for a shorter working week. The Government were invited to intervene but refused. They, however, told the Lord Provost that they would send sufficient force to carry out law and order. But law and order was never threatened. The men who were out upon strike were out with a legitimate demand. Fifteen trade unions had balloted upon the matter and had agreed. The Scottish Trade Union Congress, representative of all the workers of Scotland, had endorsed the movement. Yet we are told that it was an unofficial movement. The workers were bludgeoned down in their own streets. When they arrived in the Square to receive the governmental reply from the Lord Provost they were bludgeoned before the reply had been handed to their deputation. Can anyone wonder that the men are feeling embittered! Talk about unconstitutional action. Why, there was no occasion for Bolshevism to come to Glasgow from Russia. We had a speech at Glasgow delivered not by J. Maclean, or by others of the same class, but delivered by another man who occupied the bench opposite in front of me. We have had a speech of this character delivered in Glasgow:
And now I want to say this for the benefit of the Lord Advocate. I want to tell him that so far as I am concerned, here within his jurisdiction, I advise my fellow countrymen to resist to the end, even if it comes to using violence. I tell him more than that. I advise my fellow countrymen, even although it may never be necessary—and please God it never may be necessary to use them—to arm themselves as well as they can to beat back anybody who dares to filch from them the elementary rights of their citizenship. I tell him something more. I tell him
that if any violence arises out of my speeches, he need not trouble himself about humble working men. He can come to me as the responsible author.
Who used these words? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir E. Carson). These words were used in Glasgow. If they were used without being put down with all the powers of the Crown being invoked against the speaker, can you wonder that humble working men take his advice in the very city where that advice was given? You did not bludgeon the right hon. Gentleman when he used those words. There war a body of police present, not to arrest the right hon. Gentleman, but to escort him to the station. There was a body of police that bludgeoned down the men who demonstrated in George Square a week last Friday. You find that all over, and you ask: "Why are there unofficial strikes?" You ask why the workmen are embittered. Can you wonder that they are embittered? They see these things going on, and they say that there is still one law for the rich and another for the poor.
We are going to alter that condition of affairs. We are going to change these things. These are partly the causes of this industrial unrest. What is the cure? We are twitted with not having given any cure. We have moved. We have a cure. Merely employment in the factories is not going to absorb all the unemployed. The Speech of His Majesty spoke about bringing the people back to the land. How are you going to get the land now? The Prime Minister has left off his land campaign. He no longer gets choirs going around the country singing: "God gave the land to the people." That has ceased to be the anthem of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister. But it is still the anthem of the Labour party. One of our demands is, the land for the people. Not by taxation. Not even by confiscation. We shall demand the production of the title deeds from those who claim to be the owners of the land. I venture to suggest that so far, at least, as Scotland is concerned, 50 per cent. of the land is held without any title deeds to be shown for it. Industrial unrest is not a frame of mind. It is caused by the conditions Sunder which the people are living. There is the fear of unemployment. There is the growth and development amongst themselves. I submit that unless you are prepared to tackle these problems, not from the point of view of the use of physical force upon them when the workers de-
mand these conditions, but by treating these things in the spirit that will make for the betterment of this country you will be doing wrong. Unless what I suggest is done there, will be a still graver problem than at present confronts you in industrial unrest. We have been told by the Leader of the House that there never was a time when employers were more prepared to give their workers a bigger share. From that it might be taken that the workers were receiving larger wages to-day than in the past. In some places that, of course, may be so, but in other places it is quite untrue. Here is another reason for the industrial unrest we find. When workers read a letter of this description from the secretary of the Cooks and Stewards and realise this truth, they will Ask, "Is this the reconstruction promised by the Government during the last few days of the War?" The letter is as follows:
The action of the owners of the Brocklebank Line, who last week paid off the British crew of the steamship "Malancha," to give place to a crew of Asiatics, is scandalous. The report was brought to the Glasgow office of the Cooks and Stewards Union by two members of the late crew and may be relied on as accurate. This is one of the sacrifices that our merchant seamen have to make for Imperialism. It gives patriotic British shipowners the opportunity of kicking them out of employment to make way for cheap foreign labour. Here are the respective wages of the members of the kitchen staffs. In the old crew the British chief cook was paid £20 per month and the Asiatic chief cook £5 per month; the second British cook was paid £15 per month and the Asiatic £2 10s.; the third British cook £14 per month and the Asiatic £1; the assistant British cooks £13 per month and the Asiatic 10s. per month.
The letter is signed by the secretary of the National Union of Ship Stewards. When working men read this kind of letter only a few days after the Armistice has been signed, when they realise what the shipowners are doing to their merchant seamen whom they had in their ships, realising as they do that the British merchant seaman was the only one who should steer or guide his ship through the perils of the sea, and that those seamen are now thrown out of employment and Asiatics employed in their place at a lower wage, what will they think? The workmen on the Clyde realise what it means to the British section of the crew of that ship who are out of employment, and they say, "This is some of the reconstruction that our British employers are going to bring about in this country, and if that is reconstruction, then we, on
our part, are going to demand from the Government, who appealed for our votes, that this country, which was to be made a country fit for heroes to live in, shall also be made a "country fit for heroes to work in." Therefore, we shall demand from the Government that they shall put on the Statute Book Rules and Acts of Parliament which will bring about in this country a new world which we as workers demand as a right.

Mr. SEDDON: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, except for a remark which fell from the lips of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. sexton). Since then I have listened to the last speaker, and I think there are some things that must be said because, after all, if I understand the right hon. Gentlemen opposite aright, they have brought forward this Resolution with a definite idea, and that is to prevent anything in the nature of social disorder and industrial chaos, and from their point of view the Resolution has been put-down at least to emphasise to the Government and to the country that we are passing through a very critical period at the present time. The hon. Member for St. Helens, speaking of that element in the Labour movement which is revolutionary, said they were honest fanatics, and while he disagreed with them he assumed that because they were honest, whatever they said and whatever they did, if it was not justified, at least it could be condoned. I happen to have in my pocket the charge made against the man who has be referred to,—that is John Maclean. He received five years' penal servitude, and to hear the last hon. Member who spoke you would imagine that he was speaking for those who are angels of light, whose feelings were those of brotherhood, and that the only disturbing force that is going to bring unrest in this country was the vicious and brutal capitalist. I want to read to the House the charge upon which this man was sent to prison. [An Hon. Member: "Who framed the charge?"] The shorthand notes were taken and they were not repudiated by the person who was being tried, who rather made a glory of what he had said. Speaking to the people, he said:
The workers should take control of the Glasgow City Chamber, the Post Office, banks and newspaper offices, food stores, and the ships on the Clyde. They should seize the coal mines, and police offices and put the police inside the
gaols, and the Lord Provost, and they should be held as hostages for the safety of the Revolutionary Committee, and unless the Government follow the example of the Russian Revolutionists the workmen should down tools and compel the farmers to produce food for the workers, and if they fail to do so their farms should be burned.''
Now is there an hon. Member opposite who will endorse statements like that? No, Sir; but during the recent General Election the man who made that statement was brought out of prison, and he was permitted by the Labour party funds to fight an election in Glasgow against one of the most honourable right hon. Gentlemen in the House, the Member for Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes). This man was accepted by the Labour party as an official Labour candidate, and I say, with regret and with no feeling, that much of the industrial unrest we have at present is because the Labour party has refused to deal with anarchy inside the trade union movement at the present moment. It is perfectly true that we are at a very dangerous period in the industrial relationships of this country. I agree just as strongly as hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that the social wrongs that existed in pre-war days were a disgrace to civilisation and to this country. I go further and say that by their sacrifices in this great struggle British labour who answered the call of the country and shed their blood—yea, rivers of blood, have been drawn from the veins and from the bodies of the workers of this country—have earned for themselves and their children a larger share of the things that come from labour; and I stand with the Labour party in demanding not only that the fighter and the fighter's children, but that the whole of the workers of this country shall be admitted through legislation and by orderly government to a higher standard of comfort than was ever possible for the great teeming millions of this country in days gone by.
I want to point out what is wrong at the present time. There are bad employers, and, I am sorry to say, there are workmen whose philosophy is based upon pure hatred. They have conceived the idea that the bourgeoisie is their enemy, that the employer is a danger to the State, and that only they themselves are entitled to live in this country and to control everything so far as industry or the life of the nation is concerned. I believe that in this country there are men who belong to the
middle classes whose hearts are just as deeply stirred with pity for the sufferings of the people as any man who claims to belong to labour. I believe that this War has tempered and toned some of the feelings that existed in pre-war days. I think it was the Leader of the House who said that there was a better feeling on the part of employers towards the working people. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds is successfully engaged in bringing employers and workmen together under what is known as the Whitley Scheme, and I want to say, in passing, that it will be the verdict of history that the deliberations over which you presided with such patience and skill and sagacity, and that the findings of that Committee which bears your name, constitute one of the great landmarks in the industrial life of this country. The Whitley Commission can be made an efficient instrument for cordial relationships between capital and labour, and not only can it be made an efficient instrument for the purpose, but it can give to each side a better understanding that they are brothers and men, although one may stand for capital and the other may stand for labour. After all, we have not only to carry the debt that has arisen from the War. We have got to do something more, we have to remember that while we were spending our strength and our money formidable competitors in other parts of the world were able to keep their factories going and create huge fortunes that have put them in a very strong and privileged position. If this country is to be torn by industrial strife and other countries, who are formidable competitors, are to escape, then I say that what has been won by the sword, what has been bought at the price of flesh and blood, will be lost, and this country will be in a position that will be a disgrace to her if after the sacrifice that has been made we permit it to take place.
I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have great power in the trade union movement—there is my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Clynes), who in labour councils expresses in weighty sentences words of wisdom and of common sense—will assert their power of authority inside the trade union movement. I want them to understand that no human agency for progress and liberty can succeed if it is based upon hatred, whether of one section of the community or of another. I want them to understand that although Labour
has rights there are other rights, and to see to it that the undoubted power that they possess is used to compel the rank and file to submit to the discipline and to the rules which they themselves create and make. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down excused the unofficial strike. He said, "Can you wonder, if there are wrongs on one side, that the workmen commit a wrong on the other side?" I do wonder. I say that it is pure anarchy, and means the destruction of the trade union movement. The great bulwark, the great sheet-anchor of the Labour movement must be its organisations and trades unions, and, if you allow your Bolsheviks and your anarchists to destroy the power of your trade union leaders, then you destroy your trade union organisations, and when you do that you destroy the power of collective bargaining and put the workers back a hundred years instead of leading them forward, which I believe is the object of this Amendment.
In conclusion, I want to appeal to all sections of the House. By common sense and by an understanding of the wrongs and the rights on the side of labour we can attain to a better position than existed before the War. We have also to remember that we are citizens of this community as well as trade unionists. I want to remind the House of the words of warning uttered by the Leader of the Opposition. What is going to be the effect upon other workers of the demands that are being made at the present time? I want to make one suggestion with regard to those demands which have been made. I happen to know the life of a miner, having lived amongst them practically all my life. The miners' life is laborious, and it is dangerous. He is entitled to all the leisure and all he can get for the services which he gives to the community as a miner in the bowels of the earth, but I am sure, if they knew that a six-hour day and a 30 per cent. increase were going to injure the trade of the country and simply mean an El Dorado for one month and disaster afterwards, that the sterling common sense of that body of workers would make them prepared to reconsider their decision. If the coal trade and the trade of the country can stand the six-hour day, then by all means let the miners have a six-hour day. If the engineering trade ran stand a forty-hour week, then let them have a forty-hour week. If the transport trade can sand a forty-four-hour week, then let them have a forty-four-hour week.
But before any step is taken which may be fatal to the industry and the workers as well, I make the suggestion to the Government that they appeal to the great trade unions to enter into a conference and examine the six-hour clay in the light of the life of the nation and it effect upon our industry. I would suggest the same with regard to all other questions. Establish a Commission for the particular trades and the particular grievances, and let it be understood that it is going to be a thorough examination and that all the cards are going to be put upon the table. I believe that would be one means of tiding over this period which is dangerous. Then when we have passed this critical period we shall be able by the application of common sense to build a new order in our industrial life, where every worker shall be secure not only in employment but in the full fruits of his labour, to which every worker is entitled.

Sir R. COOPER: I have felt very much in agreement with the Amendment of the Labour party, because we all have known for some time, and most of the Government Department have had only too overwhelming knowledge, of the feeling of anxiety and unrest which was latent in the ranks of labour and which would assuredly sooner or later break out. I was impressed with the speech of they Leader of the House to-night and the very forcible and reasoned appeal he made to labour to give the Government and the country a chance at this very critical moment of transition—critical quite as much in the interests of those who labour as of any other class—in order that we may get over that period and return to more normal conditions before any great upheaval or upset in the industrial and labour life of these country takes place. I confess I have been crying for some considerable time to take a special interest in this problem. When I listened to the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment I found there was a very great deal indeed that they said with which I am in agreement. But there was one most dangerous statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), perhaps the most dangerous I have heard in this House for a considerable time. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the cost of production was a matter of grave concern even to labour as well as to the industrial interests of this country.
But, he added, "We need not give too much attention to that at the present moment, as it will be taken care of by the League of Nations." I profoundly hope the right hon. Gentleman will, before he ventures thus to mislead many people who rely upon his advice, seriously consider this point. If he is right and sincere in what he said, if he believes that the people can trust to the League of Nations to see them through any danger that may be awaiting them in connection with the problem of the cost of production, then I ask him why he will not equally relegate to the League of Nations all those matters which we are discussing to-night, and which are a source of very great anxiety to us. There is no difference between them.
I venture to think that those who speak of trusting the League of Nations cannot realise the problem we are discussing here. We are threatened at this moment with the danger of a big strike in connection with the mining industry, and it is absurd for any person to attempt to lightly dismiss what is the real foundation as I think, of this great problem, and to say that it can be relegated to the League of Nations. I felt sympathy with this Amendment because I really believe with the experience of the War, and I can claim that I have had a little experience in connection with labour problems in Government administration, the time has come when the Government could have foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne a minimum wage for all industries throughout the country. I believe that is coming very quickly indeed. I believe that the experience gained by Government officials throughout the Departments would, if collected and examined, show that we can now safely contemplate the putting into effect by Statute a legal minimum wage in all the industries of the country. This great problem of labour unrest so widely touches every aspect of our national life that it is not to be wondered at that nearly every speaker here and outside this House attaches more importance to one matter rather than another as being, in his judgment, the real root cause of it, I am not going to hesitate to express what I really think is the fundamental difficulty around which employers are all the time revolving without actually grappling with it, and which also the Labour party have failed to realise. It is impossible for anyone who has a knowledge of industry and
world trading to think that every increase of wages, every attempt to cut down hours, every attempt to improve the conditions of labour, can be carried through if you are to have no regard whatever to output and the cost of production. There comes a point where, if industry is forced too far in this direction, there are going to be no wages and no employment. The point I want to make is really this, that at this very moment labour is, in some trades, officially supporting a ca' canny policy—a policy of going slow. They are talking of restricted output and trying to spread employment in the hope of absorbing the large number of people already out of employment and those who are going to be demobilised. That is an absolute fallacy on which labour is working. You cannot follow that policy and at the same time get higher rates of wages, better hours, and those improved conditions which labour is right in striving for, and which in other conditions I do not hesitate to say might be secured.
The Leader of the House made reference particularly to the circumstances of labour output in the United States. As I mentioned in the House some time ago, I have the advantage of manufacuring, both in the United States and in this country at the present time, the same kind of article, and therefore I am in a position to give a concrete example as my reason for saying that Labour is wrong in its policy of restricting output, and that it cannot get what it is asking for if it is going to follow its present misguided policy. Now in the States workmen will strike and actually have struck because an employer was not efficient, because his works are not efficiently managed and because he has not the most up-to-date machinery. The workers say, "If you do not give us as efficient machinery as is to be found in other mills we cannot earn the same amount per week," In the United States the policy of Labour is this, we want limited hours—they are in fact limited to eight hours—we insist on getting short hours, we insist on good conditions, we want high pay, but when we have got these things we will put our goodwill into the industry and we will help it to succeed, because the more it succeeds the greater will be the demand for labour and the greater the margin for increased wages. That policy is sound in practice, because, at the present time, working in that country under those conditions, although by
law we are restricted to eight hours work per day, and although we are paying higher wages than in this country, we find that the cost per article in the United States is positively less than it is in this country, I urge with all the force at my command that it is no use employers or workpeople relying upon conciliation boards to deal with difficulties when they have arisen, or the Whitley Report, or the National Alliance, or all these organisations that are waiting to take up these labour difficulties is and when they arise. That is working from hand to mouth, never getting rid of the root-cause of the trouble. The day labour says, "If you will play the game with us, give us that better life, and give it whole-heartedly; make it as big as circumstances permit," we will at once do everything in our power to assist in what is necessary.

Mr. ADAMSON: You have never done it before, you will not do it now.

Sir R. COOPER: May I remind my night hon. Friend that I have advocated what I am saying in this House to-night before now, but I have not had very much encouragement. I hope he is not going to find fault with one engaged in the capacity of employer, and who speaks because of his practical knowledge and experience in other countries under different conditions, and who is able to indicate what can be done if only Labour would consider the stopping of the "ca' canny" policy and the policy of restricted output.

An HON. MEMBER: That is what causes unrest in this country.

Sir R. COOPER: I cannot argue that to-night. If I am wrong, I shall be extremely glad if any hon. Member above the Gangway would be good enough to spare a few minutes in trying to put me right after war is. I am perfectly convinced that, in spite of what they say, what I am advocating is right, that the cost of production in what labour has in its own interests to study. In the great struggle for the world's markets, which is just beginning, we depend upon competition and competitive prices. If we cannot compete with other countries like the United States, which have not a tithe of the burden on their industries which this country has to carry, where shall we stand? The burden in Britain is a War Debt of £8,000,000,000, two thousand millions of which we owe on external
trade. We have yet to face a Budget of £600,000,000—I am not sure that it will not reach £700,000,000, We can only carry that burden and pay our debts in proportion as we increase our wealth production. We cannot increase our wealth production unless we secure a very large share of the overseas markets of the world. That is the problem we have to meet. At the present moment we suffer at the hands of the United States, notably in South America and China. Even in Belgium we are suffering very badly. I personally hold the Government very largely to blame because they have no industrial policy and because they are not doing all in their power to help industry get going to produce the goods and to get its shave of overseas trade. On the other hand, as I insinuated at Question Time to-day, the Government is licensing the dumping of foreign-made goods in this country. That is competing with our own manufactures. Some of the goods—I am referring particularly to lamps, globes, and gas mantles—are coming through Holland from Germany into this country to-day. A policy of that nature is sheer suicide for this country. If this country does suffer industrially, I am quite sure my right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench will not deny that labour will have to suffer along with all other sections of the community.
What I have in my mind is this. I believe that now employers have become very widely organised in this country, just as labour is and has been for a considerable time on its side very widely organised, the time has come when each body, separately at first, should consider what are the demands, the rights, and the duties, and what is the minimum we must put up. Then let us have an industrial labour conference between representatives of the two bodies, to see whether we cannot between us find an improved system and an improved policy which in going to carry the great burden which the nation has to carry, that in going to support industry, and that is going to find the only possible way in which the members of the Labour party can secure those better conditions of wages and of rest for which they are properly fighting. I am convinced that until these problems of output and cost of production as stated both by employers and by labour are settled there is not a very bright outlook for the future. I say this as an employer. My right hon. Friend the Member for
Abertillery (Mr. Brace) was quite right when he said to-night that the trouble of the past and of the present as to output is that employers, generally speaking, have never failed to take opportunities of cutting down rates. Of course that was practised very widely years ago, and it was the reason that drove labour to what is called the "ca' canny" policy. If there are employers at the present time who have had honourable agreements with labour and have broken them, there is no punishment too severe for any employer who does break for his own sordid end an agreement once made with labour. I hope the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Glasgow (Mr. Neil M'Lean) who referred to this matter, will be good enough to give me a real illustration of a firm that had an agreement which was deliberately broken. I would join with him in doing everything I could to bring such employers to book, for there is nothing more disastrous to this country than the narrow-minded, pettifogging policy that used to be adopted years ago rather widely, and which exists to some extent at the present time. I only hope and trust that labour will give a little closer consideration at once to this question of unrestricted output and to the question of the cost of production, because the future of labour, like the future of every other class in the country, depends very largely indeed upon a proper, sound and lasting solution of this great problem.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Whilst it is perfectly true that the King's most Gracious Speech refers in general terms to matters of social reconstruction it seems to one who is a new Member, unaccustomed to the ways of the House, unfortunate that in response to the weighty appeal made by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, no further details should have been given as to the general outline of some of those measures of social reconstruction.
Let me illustrate the point by one case, that of housing. We are promised in the King's Speech a measure of housing reform. We have had on the Statute Book for many years, as all those who have been at all interested in local government well know, a number of housing measures. The difficulty that we are up against in the administration of those housing measures has been that every time the cost of the land has been of such a character
that it is impossible for any municipality, no matter how progressive, to carry out these measures without a large burden on the rates. The consequence is, to those interested in local affairs, that unless the State were to give power to localities to acquire land at a cost more nearly approaching the rateable value no real, sound housing measures could be carried out. It is most unfortunate that in the reply which we have had from the Leader of the House he could do no more than say that there was nothing the Prime Minister had to add to what he had previously said. If he could have assured us that the Prime Minister still adhered to that radical programme of land reform with which he was so closely associated in pre-war days, it would have been, I am sure, some satisfaction to those who are most anxious to see an end to that social unrest, which is due in a measure to defective housing, and we should have felt that there was a reasonable chance of social reconstruction on broad and real lines being carried out. It is perhaps not improper to refer to the Committee of Inquiry which was instituted by the Prime Minister himself four years ago when, even before the War, there was a shortage of something like 500,000 houses in the working class areas of this land. That number to-day is immeasurably increased, and unless the local authorities have the power to acquire land, especially in towns, land which has increased in value either owing to the growth of the town itself, to its industries, or to its enterprise, at something like its rateable or its agricultural value, these programmes of social reconstruction based on housing will be held up because of the large cost. I am perfectly aware that the Local Government Board has promised to relieve localities of the greater part of the burden which will be laid upon them, but we have been reminded of the need for national economy, and surely the Government will carry out that principle of national economy by seeing that municipalities and localities that require land are able to get it for housing and other public purposes at something less than that tremendous price, that artificial value, which is asked for. The locality which I represent has been engaged in the last fourteen years in trying to improve the houses in its neighbourhood and we have been up against the cost every time. We are up against the cost of compensation for slum owners, which makes for social
unrest, and we are up against the cost of land, really of Agricultural value, which had to be bought for ten times that value because the locality happened to require it for a school or for the housing of the working classes, and it is to be regretted that it is impossible for the Government to give some assurance that their social reconstruction based on their housing measures does not contain some drastic means of dealing with land reform on lines whereby the cost to the locality, and the cost to the nation, would not be increased by these artificial values which have grown up, made by the locality itself. Therefore, unless same assurance is given, I feel bound to support this Amendment, hoping that it may possibly encourage the Government, if the Amend-

ment is pressed, to see to it that their programme of social reconstruction is on drastic, radical lines, and that the burden on the country, requiring land for housing and other purposes, is not made greater because of exorbitant prices paid to the landlords.

Question put, "That the words, 'But regrets the absence of any mention of definite proposals for dealing with the present causes of industrial unrest and for securing, as regards wages and working, hours, conditions of labour that will establish a higher standard of life and social well-being for the people.' be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 311.

Division No. 1.]
AYES.
[9.3 p.m.


Abraham, Rt. Hon. W.
Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyko
Harbison, T. J. S.
Sexton, James


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, V.
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Arnold, Sydney
Hayday, A.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, T. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Hogge, J. M.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davis, Alfred (Clitheroe)
O'Connor, T. P.
Tootill, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
O'Grady, James
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lances.)


Devlin, Joseph
Onions, Alfred
Waterson, A. E.


Donnelly, P.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Redmond, Captain William A.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. T. Wilson and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton)



Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. H.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Brassey, H. C. L.
Collins, Col. G. P. (Greenock)


Allen, Major W. J.
Breese, Major C. E.
Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Archdale, Lt. Edward M.
Brittain, Sir Harry E.
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)


Armitage, Robert
Britton, G. B.
Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)


Baird, Major John Lawrence
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)


Baldwin, Stanley
Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Cozens-Hardy, W. H.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)


Barker, Major R.
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Burdon, Col. Rowland
Craik, Rt. Hon, Sir Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Barrand, A. R.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Dalziol, Davison (Brixton)


Barrie, C. C.
Campbell, J. G. D.
Davidson, Major-Genaral J. H.


Beckett, Major Hon. Gervase
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Davies, A. (Lincoln)


Bell, Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Carlife, Sir Edward Hildred
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Carr, W. T.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)


Bennett, T. J.
Casey, T. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)


Betterton, H. B.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Denison-Pender, Captain J.


Bigland, Alfred
Cayzer, Major H. R.
Dennis, J. W.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Denniss, Edmund R. B.


Blades, Sir George R.
Chadwick, R. Burton
Dixon, Captain H.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Dockrell, Sir M.


Blane, T. A.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Donald, T.


Boles, Col. Fortasque
Chilcott, Lieut.-Com, H. W. S.
Doyle, N. Gratton


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Edge, Captain William


Borwick, Major O. G.
Clough, R.
Edwards, A. C. (East Ham, S.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Elliott, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Lioyd, George Butler
Renwick, G.


Falcon, Captain M.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)


Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lonsdale, James R.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lorden, John William
Rodger, A. K.


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lort-Williams, J.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Forestier-Walker, L.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Rowlands, James


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lyle, C. E.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Fraser, Sir Keith
Lyle-Samuel, A. L.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Gange, E. S.
Lynn, R. J.
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Lyon, L.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Callum, Sir John M.
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Geddes, Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)
Seager, Sir William


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Guffin, Samuel
Seddon, J. A.


Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Glyn, Major R.
Macmaster, Donald
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Goff, Sir R. Park
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.


Gould, J. C.
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Simm, Col. M. T.


Grant, James Augustus
Macquisten, F. A.
Smithers, Alfred W.


Grayson, Lieut-Col. H. M.
Maddocks, Henry
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Green, A. (Derby)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Stanley, Major Hon. George (Preston)


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Greer, Harry
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gregory, Holman
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Stephenson, Col. H. K.


Greig, Col. James William
Martin, A. E.
Stevens, Marshall


Griggs, Sir Peter
Mason, Robert
Stewart, Gershom


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, W. Lane-
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)
Moles, Thomas
Sugden, W. H.


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sutherland, Sir William


Hallwood, A.
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Moreing, captain Algernon H.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Harris, Sir H. P.
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)


Haslam, Lewis
Morris, Richard
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Henderson, Major V. L.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hennessy, Major G.
Mosley, Oswald
Tickler, Thomas George


Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)
Murchison, C. K.
Townley, Maximillian G.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Murray, Major Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Vickers, D.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Waddington, R.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Walker, Col. William Hall


Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Nall, Major Joseph
Wallace, J.


Higham, C. F.
Neal, Arthur
Walton, J. (York. Don Valley)


Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hinds, John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Wardle, George J.


Hood, Joseph
Nield, Sir Herbert
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hopkinson, A. (Mossley)
Palmer, G. M. (Jarrow)
Whitla, Sir William


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G (Westbury)
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parker, James
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Hurd, P. A.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Inskip, T. W. H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Percy, Charles
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Jameson, Major J. G.
Perring, William George
Williams, T. J. (Swansea, E.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Pickering, Col. Emil W.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)


Jesson, C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Johnson, L. S.
Pinkham, Col. Charles
Wilson, Col. M, (Richmond, Yorks.)


Johnstone, J.
Pratt, John William
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Woods, Sir Robert


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)
Purchase, H. G.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Kellaway, Frederick George
Raeburn, Sir William
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Ramsden, G. T.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


King, Com. Douglas
Raper, A. Baldwin
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.



Knights, Capt. H.
Rees, Sir J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord


Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Remer, J. B.
Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)




Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again postpond.

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISE.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I beg to move, at the end of the Address, to add the words,
But respectfully regrets, having regard to the pressing need both to increase that part of the Exchequer receipts which is derived from sources other than taxation, and to stimulate productive enterprise throughout the Empire in directions in which individual effort cannot be relied upon by itself to achieve the most bene-
ficial results for the community, that no mention is made in the Gracious Speech of any policy designed to meet this important need, or of any intention to inquire whether such a policy would be feasible and advantageous.
In moving this Amendment I desire to draw attention to a matter of great public importance. I have been told that the terms of the Amendment are perhaps too scientific in form, and therefore it may be desirable to define exactly what they mean in rather more popular language. Generally speaking, the policy which we advocate is that the Government should make up its mind to take such suitable opportunities as may come in its way of making profit in large-scale industrial and commercial concerns under conditions which will ensure efficient management, whether these concerns are engaged in work either in this country or in the Over-sea Dominions and territories of the Empire. We wish first to find out if the Government have any policy on this matter and, if so, what it is, and if they have no policy we hope that the effect of this discussion may be that they will consider the subject further, and perhaps institute inquiries and endeavour to make up their mind at the earliest possible moment.
A policy such as we advocate is no new policy. It has been followed by successive Governments, I will not say in a large number, but in a number of instances. I might, also say that, where it has been followed, the result that the Government have made a profit on these enterprises has been rather more incidental than fundamental. They have gone into various enterprises for various reasons, and from the point of view of profit earning have, I may say, blundered into good things. The most classic instance is the purchase by Lord Beaconsfield of the Suez Canal shares. We paid, I think, £4,000,000 for them. To-day they are worth from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000. They have earned interest for many years. If the £4,000,000 had been originally applied, as it might have been, towards the extinction of the National Debt, only £4,000,000 of debt would have been extinguished, whereas in consequence of that investment £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 could be wiped out.
Then the enterprise of my right hon. Friend, now Minister for War (Mr. Churchill), when he was at the Admiralty, I believe, resulted in what appears to be
a very acute commercial transaction, the purchase of a considerable interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The net result of that transaction, I was credibly informed last week by one who knows is that we own to-day a comparatively small number of debentures, about £200,000 worth, which pay 6 per cent. and that we have got. two-thirds of the ordinary share capital, £2,000,000 of the £3,000,000. It has paid 8 per cent., and I am told that the rate will probably be very much larger in the future. In fact my friend, who holds a very responsible position in that concern told me that he looks forward to this being an investment equally successful as that Lord Beaconsfield made in purchasing the Suez Canal shares. That shows what can be done if the Government uses its opportunities and puts its money wisely into industrial concerns. Then there is the smaller example of what occasionally occurs in connection with the comparatively small sums dealt with by the Development Commissioners. They are supposed to use their money to assist small enterprises in a small way in this country to get on their feet, but in many of the agreements there are inserted provisions, as for instance in connection with some of the afforestation work, that if any profit is ultimately made the Government should get some share of it.
That is sufficient to show that the principle which I advocate is no new one, but it has never as yet been systematically pursued with the avowed object of increasing the revenues of the State by this means. In the discussion which took place on the last Amendment I was very glad to hear the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper), in which he alluded to the gravity of the financial position with which we are faced at this time in this country, and for that reason, if for no other, I think it absolutely essential that the Government should inquire into every possible means for lightening the burdens with which this country is faced in the future. The figure which my hon. Friend gave of National Debt after the War was 8,000 millions. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament made himself responsible for as large a figure as that, but certainly I should be inclined by the time the reconstruction period is at an end, and if the very insistent demands of hon. Friends opposite are acceded to, to put the National Debt at the end of that period.
at well over 8,000 millions. But I am quite content, for the purpose of my argument, to take it at that immense figure. Then, with regard to the requirements of the State by way of income, I do not believe I should be over-estimating the figure if I put it at 800 millions per annum. We have to remember that all the pre-war expenses will have been increased. I should think that for the Civil Service, and all the various old and new Government Departments which have sprung up, probably 50 per cent. at least will have to be added to the pre-war figure. Then there is interest and sinking fund on debt, expense of demobilisation, the very large expense of pensions, and all the reconstruction expenditure, of which a large portion will no doubt be capital expenditure. I do hope that of that a large proportion will be dealt with on business lines, so that it may be interest-bearing, in which event, even if it is an addition to the debt, it will not matter so much as if it were simply flung away, as vast sums have been poured out in this War. I do not complain of what has been done. War is waste, and it cannot be helped. But I hope the time well arrive when this House, and the many new Members in it who are acquainted with business and finance, will endeavour to get the finances of the country placed on a peace footing at the earliest possible moment; and that they will join with those of us who have always been interested in this matter, in insisting upon Estimates, and an the Government working to them, and generally infusing so far as is possible a business attitude into our financial policy.
With regard to the special policy I have been advocating, I have been endeavouring to discover from such sidelights as have been thrown on the matter by speeches of members of the Government, and the action of Government Departments, whether the Government as a whole—and it is to them as a whole that I am appealing to-night—has any policy or not. Such action as has been taken on the part of the several Departments as I have been able to see, has led me to the conclusion that many Departments of the Government intend and desire to engage in business. But, so far as I can discover, in most cases—and it is only natural if these matters are to be dealt with by Civil servants flushed with the brief authority they have acquired during the War—the intention is to run these businesses, not in
a way in which people accustomed to commercial business would aim to run them, but at a loss and not a profit. If this is the way the businesses are being entered on, then I most sincerely hope they will be closed down at the earliest possible moment, and not allowed to attain any important dimensions. I have already alluded to the shrewd investment by the Minister of War, who was then at the Admiralty, in the purchase of the Anglo-Persian oil shares. I wish that the utterances we have had from him upon the subject of the nationalisation of railways had filled me with the same feelings of approbation. I do not propose to quote his speech—speeches are so often misreported—but the impression left on my mind was that his attitude towards the subject of transport, a subject on which, in the last Parliament, some of us spent a good deal of time considering details, was that the State must run the transport of the county, and that it did not matter how much it lost on it as it would get it back indirectly. That is not an attitude which any business man would approve, and unless you are to go towards financial disaster as fast as you can everything that is run by the State ought to be made to pay its way on its own. Otherwise, if you have a business run on lines where it is no one's interest to see that it pays, you may be certain that the loss accruing from inefficient management will be enormous, and the larger the business the greater the loss.
Now I turn to another activity, with which I think the Board of Trade is concerned. We have all heard, and no doubt all approve, that it is the intention of the Government—the Prime Minister included it in his programme—to institute enormous super-stations at the earliest moment for the provision of electrical power and light. There have been Government reports which show the saving which can be effected if that is properly carried out, and from figures which I gave in the last Parliament from my experience in South Africa—and I have every reason to believe that the figures are correct—the saving to be effected would be £100,000,000 per annum. Another estimate—I do not know if it is an official one, but it is on a high authority—is that the cost of carrying out these works and creating these new installations will be in the neighbourhood of £300,000,000. I do not think it is unreasonable to express a desire that if, by State intervention,
present and future customers of power are to be saved £100,000,000 per annum, £30,000,000 of that saving should go into the Treasury in relief of taxation.

An HON. MEMBER: What about employment?

Mr. WILSON-FOX: That is a common fallacy, if I may say so, which says that if a State runs a thing it is to run it at cost. It is a very common thing to say that anything the State receives above actual cost is taxation. That is not my view of the matter at all. I maintain that if the State runs the business the State, like any other corporation which does the same work, is entitled to profit from the business winch anybody else would receive if it did the work, and that those profits, when obtained, are not taxation, but the legitimate fruits of the labour and enterprise of the Government carrying out the work. That is, I admit, quite contentious, but it is my view, and I want to impress it on the House. Of the other enterprises of the Government, some we know must be run at a loss, but I hope that it will be at as small a loss as possible. One of these is the question of housing. There you will have an immense expense. It is admitted on all hands that there will have to be some subsidies given to enable rents to be kept low. Still, my view would be, that while this may be necessary for the moment, that rents should be brought to an economic scale as soon as possible, and that it would be far better that wages should accrue to the labourers sufficient to meet their full obligations rather than that special classes of labour should receive subsidies in respect of particular items oil expenditure. It is much better that every workman should receive enough to enable him to live properly, to enable him to maintain his family in comfort, and to pay his rent and all other charges just like any other citizen. Then there is the question of food supply. The Government have paid what was held out to us originally to be a sum of £40,000,000 a year, but which speedily swelled to £60,000,000 a year, to enable us to get cheap bread. That had to be done, at any rate under war conditions, but these war conditions will soon be over, and I hope that the business of the Government in the purveying of food at this immense loss will be closed down as soon a sever it can be. I find no evidence anywhere of any desire on the part of any
member of the Government or of any Government Department to make money. It is all loss, loss, loss.
We spent a very vast sum during the War in the erection of very expensive, well-equipped, and up-to-date factories. There seems to me to be no considered plan for dealing with them. We see advertisements in the paper every other day advertising these properties; for sale, and I have not the slightest doubt they are being sold or will be sold, if nothing is done, at wreckage prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the last occasion I think when he made a financial statement, estimated that the surplus assets, or the material which the Government had acquired for war purposes, would realise, and he was very optimistic and very certain on this point, was at least £1,000,000,000. I hope that nay be so, but whatever the amount may be, my concern is that those properties should be disposed of in the best possible manner to yield the best return to their proprietors, the general public. Take, for instance, that great factory of which we have all heard, the Gretna Green factory. On that, I believe, something like £10,000,000 was spent. As one experienced in business, I should doubt very much if when that is sold it will realise more than, let us say, £3,000,000. I do not think that that would be a, bad sum to get in cash. My suggestion would be that the Government should endeavour to sell a factory of that sort, not for cash at all, but on a basis of partnership with people who understand the business in which they are going to engage, and that the Government should lake payment for the property in debentures and in ordinary stock. In a sale of that character I for one would expect that for a factory of such dimensions, a sum of £6,000,000 would be obtained, paid for, say, half in debentures at 6 per cent., a reasonable sum in these days, and half in ordinary shares. The Government have means which to private individual has, since they have got records, of estimating the profits on ordinary shares made in good industrial manufacturing concerns run on a large scale by competent people. I should be surprised myself if it was found to be less than 10 per cent. I think that would probably be a fair average, although, of course, some would earn more and some would earn less. But I think 10 per cent. profit in a manufacturing busi-
ness on the ordinary shares and 6 per cent. on the debentures would not be out of the way. If that is the case, you would have effected a sale for £6,000,000 and would receive an average return of 8 per cent. Let us look at what that means from the point of view of the extinction of the National Debt. A sum of £3,000,000 paid in cash would pay off £3,000,000 of debt and would save in interest £150,000 per annum, while a sale at £6,000,000, with an average dividend of 8 per cent., would yield £480,000 per year, or, in other words, would extinguish £9,500,000 of debt instead of £3,000,000. I do not wish to be bound to those figures, but I think any business man will look upon them as a fair illustration of what can be done by a sale on commercial lines against a break-up sale for cash. There will only, of course, be a limited number of concerns which could be dealt with in that way, but there are unlimited directions in which the Government could within the Empire engage in large-scale production with not only very great benefit to themselves, but with very great benefit to any territory in which, with associates, it embarks on large-scale commercial undertakings. Our overseas territories are crying out for capital and people, and anybody who assists to obtain them is a benefactor to those territories, and is entitled to get a legitimate profit for his enterprise. I have given elsewhere illustrations of what has been done in connection with irrigation work. I do not wish to elaborate this subject to-night or to weary the House with examples, because I do not think that this is the proper place to do so.
What I desire to suggest to the Government is this: If they have not decided on any considered policy in this matter then I do beg of them to give it their consideration and to refer it to the strongest Select Committee, of both Houses if possible, to consider the whole of this matter and then, having heard all that is to be said for and against, that Committee can advise the Government as to what their policy ought to be. I do not expect the Government to-night to express any decided opinion. I admit that the subject we are putting forward is contentious, but I do think that enough is known on these matters to justify a request for the immediate appointment of a Select Committee to go into this question. If I may suggest
the general reference would be (1) by what means the revenue of the State from sources other than taxation may be increased? and then (2) whether the State can advantageously engage for profit, directly or indirectly, in selected branches of industry and development at home or in the overseas territories of the Empire? None of my Friends have ever agitated for any action by the State which would interfere with individual enterprise. We believe that the Empire has been built up by individual enterprise and if it could be shown, that any proposed activity would interfere with legitimate enterprise we would not be prepared to advocate it. My third point accordingly is, (3) if so what limit should be imposed upon its activities? (4) Fourthly, what organisation would be required to provide for the efficient conduct of individual undertakings and for the protection of the financial interests of the State? I say at once that I have always held that management by Government Departments of commercial businesses is an impossible thing, and that the Government Departments are not organised and are not staffed to engage in work of this kind. I should regard it as absolutely essential that any commercial enterprises in which the State might engage should be placed under efficient commercial men and run on efficient commercial lines, otherwise I for one would be the very last to advocate any such policy as that which I am laying before the House to-night.
There is another point. The Government, I think, in these matters might perhaps beware of super-men, because an organisation based on the theory that you can get a constant supply of super-men to manage it is not possible. All businesses should be organised on the basis that you can get a proper supply of good average men, and not super-men. Where there is a will I am sure there is a way, and if we have to obtain a body of sufficiently qualified men to engage in the matters I have indicated I am quite certain it could be done efficiently. But it could not be done on war lines, because however efficient that method might be from the point of view of winning the War, as cost has never been considered in connection with such undertakings at all, such a system would, I think, prove hopelessly inefficient from a commercial point of view. It is perhaps unpopular at the present time to quote Germany as an example, but there
is no doubt that many of the trials and difficulties we have experienced, which have necessitated such supreme sacrifices, have been due to the efficiency of Germany m many directions, and particularly in its organisation on the industrial side. Therefore I, for one, do not disdain to look to Germany to see what she is doing and to see if there is anything in her methods which we can copy with advantage. Before the War the most popular professor in Germany, Professor Naumann, in his very well-known book, "Mittel Europa," advocated a policy of this sort, and pointed out that the State could derive revenue with the least hardship to individuals if it book its share of production at the source before it paused into private ownership, and he advocated the investment by the Government of large sums in some of their great commercial undertakings. I was very interested to see that in a lecture given about two months ago the German Chancellor of the Exchequer reviewed all the sources to which Germany could possibly look, to pay the huge obligations she would have to meet in the future, and after stretching all the ordinary forms of taxation, direct and indirect, to the utmost, came to the conclusion that the State could not rely upon these methods to meet its probable needs, and advocated there the adoption of the very policy which I am putting before the House to right. That, at any rate, is, I think, an indication that we who have similar great necessities should inquire most closely as to whether what I suggest is possible before we reject it.
I may also mention that towards the end of the last Session of Parliament this policy was referred to by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when discussing proposals for the conscription of wealth. They did not find favour in many quarters of this Mouse, but he described this policy as one of the alternatives which should be considered in connection with them, and I ask that the Government should now give it its serious consideration and adopt early means to make that consideration effective. I do not wish to weary the House with figures, but there are one or two to which I should like to draw attention. Very high authorities placed our pre-war national income at £2,300,000,000, and the savings of this country before the War, out of which the betterment of our means of production at
home and overseas had to be carried out, were estimated at £400,000,000 per annum. The income derived from taxation in this country in the year 1913–14 was £163,000,000, and in 1911 the proportion of the taxation which was borne by the payers of direct taxes was 56 per cent., so that roughly speaking, in 1913–14, £90,000,000 was being found by the Income Tax payers of the country. The last figure which we had of the proportion of direct taxation was that it was 82 per cent., and we know that for the current year the tax income of the country will be about £800,000,000. In other words, the taxation upon the direct taxpayers of the country has increased from £90,000,000 in 1913–14 to £600,000,000 in 1918–19, or an increase of £510,000,000. I think we must assume that if £400,000,000 per annum was required for the betterment of our means of production at home and overseas in 1913–14, it would not be rash to say that you would have to add 50 per cent. to that to-day to get the same work done. In other words, £600,000,000 would have to be found, and the net result is that if the same classes are going to be looked to to provide the savings as did provide them before the War, those classes will have to find another £710,000,000 per annum, and I for one do not believe they can do it. Therefore I attach the greatest importance to our financial situation being very carefully reviewed and that every possible means should be adopted of increasing the proportion of the revenue of the State which is derived from sources other than taxation. I feel the more strongly on the point, because if this policy were adopted we should be killing two birds with one stone. We should be both improving immensely our financial position, and we should at the same times be increasing production and the avenues for employment of the working classes of this country. I be live we should do far more by carrying out a constructive policy of this nature to destroy industrial unrest than we shall by squabbling over the many matters which have been before tie House already at such length to-day.

Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to second the Amendment. I think it must be something rather novel in our House of Commons to hear of a proposal to raise the revenue from sources other than taxation I have sat in this House for night years, and I have never before heard any such proposals. The Mover of the Amendment desires that an inquiry should be made as
to whether it is possible to raise the revenue by means other than taxation. I think I may claim that I am an old-fashioned Englishman that has one dread more than another, and that is that if he is in debt, he must get out of it. We as a nation owe much to our own countrymen, and I do not consider that as a debt which must be met immediately, but when I read that we owe £800,000,000 outside our own Empire, then I say it is time that we considered some means of raising revenue or capital by means other than taxation. I remember sitting in this House and hearing Mr. Asquith boasting that during seven years he as Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the enormous sum of £94,000,000 towards the liquidation of the National Debt; bat we have to find in one debt, to the United States, £800,000,000. And how are we going to do it? It is borne in upon the minds of many of us that we are not going to do it by the ordinary means of taxation. I hold myself to be a Member of this House as a trustee in one sense to the people of this country and Empire, and that I have a life interest in all matters relating thereto, and I have this feeling, that while I am a trustee in all matters of Empire with regard to the citizenship of the people of the Empire, I think many of us realise that we have a wider responsibility even than that. We have, I was going to say, a responsibility to the citizens of the whole world, because in our Empire we have had bequeathed to us by our forefathers a quarter of the surface of the earth, and we have control, more or less, of nearly a quarter of the people of the earth. Therefore, when we come to talk of the resources of this great Empire, and how those resources are going to be used for our own benefit, we must also take into account the possibility of using those resources in not too selfish a manner and not thinking too much of our own personal needs.
But now, after this great War, after the wonderful victory that we have had over our enemies, in my own mind I visualise the marvellous relifting of our race, and the development of this Empire of which we are the trustees. Thinking of history, it is 300 years or more since the British race overcame the Spanish Armada, and most of you will remember that it was within seventeen year, of the defeat of the Spanish Armada that the British Empire expanded in the West by the formation of
the Hudson Bay Territory Company and in the East by the Old East India Company. It seems that after the Spaniards had been overthrown the great opportunity of the Anglo-Saxon race was made. So, after the tyranny of the Hun has been overthrown, I foresee a marvellous opportunity for the development of the resources of the British Empire, and it is on that ground that I am an advocate here to-night of an inquiry in this House as to the possibility and feasibility of carrying out some of the ideas which the hon. Member for Tamworth has laid before the House, and some of the ideas I want now to mention.

10.0 P.M.

During the War I was placed in control of certain of the raw products of this Empire, and although I knew a great deal before, I have learnt a great deal since. I would like to mention one or two points as illustrations. I was placed in charge of all the oils in the Empire containing glycerine for the manufacture of cordite, and during that work I found we had a monopoly right of the whale fisheries of the Antartic Ocean. From those fisheries I purchased in 1917,on behalf of the British Government, 600,000 barrels of whale oil. What would that mean in meat if we had been able to utilise it? Scientists to-day say it will be possible to take the meat of the whale, and with careful treatment make an excellent human food of it. There is an enterprise for the Nation! You have in the oceans of the Southern Seas a fabulous quantity of product which is boiled down for manure, when scientists tell you that with proper care you can use it for human food. It is a suggestion, and out of it grows a greater suggestion, that we in the British Empire should make a fortune out of the food-fish of the world. It has never been developed in the quantities that are possible. One authority tells me that the seals of the Northern Oceans consume 6,000,000 tons of fish per annum, and no impression is made on the total supply. We in this country eat before the War 600,000 tons of fish in a year. Such a small quantity many of us estimate might be multiplied by four, and still we should only be eating the reasonable quantity of 6 tons of fish food per day. The idea has occurred to some of us that this is a question that should be inquired into. Let me give you one or two facts. On the British Columbian coasts we have 6,000 miles of ocean front. We have the most wonderful fish there in the world.
Some of us have been to inquire of the Pacific Railway run to Prince Rupert as to the cost of delivering this fish in the United Kingdom markets so far as transport goes, and the estimate we have received from the authorities is that if the British Government, or anybody of sufficient authority, would guarantee 3,000 tons per week the railway company would put special trains at our service, build special steamers and deliver that fish from Prince Rupert to Liverpool at a cost of ld. a lb. It opens up a wonderful vision of the possibility of feeding our people by State enterprise.

Then there are the enormous possibilities with regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries that have never been half developed. There is the possibility now that our Admiralty will have at least 2,000 vessels for which they will have no use now that the War is over, and that we might make a national fishing fleet to go out and fish in the waters of the Empire to feed our own people at a most reasonable price, and that the Exchequer should participate in the result and a certain portion of those profits go to pay our War debt. I have gone into the matter, and I am bold to make this statement, that in 30 years from to-day, with development, with expenditure rightly governed and guided, I believe that from these fisheries we could shall 10,000,000 tons of fish per annum, and that, at the paltry profit of 1d. a lb. you would have millions of pounds going into your Exchequer of which you had never dreamt as possible revenue, the people would obtain a food cheaper than they had ever known, and the fishermen would have great opportunities by a system of bonus payments not to stultify individuality, but to increase it, and we as a State should see that the ships in which the men went to sea were the best that could be found, that all the scientific appliances possible should be used, that the newest research with regard to propagation of fish should be followed, that many advancements should be made in the building of harbours and in the erection of enormous cold-storage plant; and there should be developed in this country a system of transport by which these fish could be preserved and delivered into the market towns of the country as perfectly fresh food. I think this is a picture almost such as a wizard might wave with a wand, and say, "You men in the British House of Commons are trustees of an estate of untold wealth." The wealth
is untold, and I want to use those resources not only for the production of wealth, but as a weapon in the defence of our working classes that we have heard so much debated in the last two days. I know no means of fighting the battle for labour and the safeguarding of the wage limit if you have no weapon in your hands.

Some of us were Members of this House when the matter of the Treaty of Great Britain with her ally Japan was talked about. The result of that discussion was that we got the worst terms possible because we had not a weapon in our hands. The resources of the British Empire should be a weapon of the British House of Commons in business arrangements with all other countries where they have Parliamentary government. Then we shall have in our hands a weapon, because we have more to bargain with in the raw material of our Empire as a means of bargaining than any other of our civilised competitors. Having that power in our hands I, for one, want to use it with reason and common sense to open the doors of possibility for the products of our artisans that they do not possess to-day. I say we can do it. I say that with that weapon in our hands we can open doors which have been closed. We can make opportunities for our workmen. We can build up in this Empire an enormously increased productivity which shall give to the workers in our home markets an enormous increase of employment, and employment of a kind that cannot be taken from them. By that I mean that we increase the productivity of our own Empire under such conditions that the warp and woof of commerce and trade will continue, and we need not fear having a too high rate of wages in this country for able and good work.

Another thought is in many minds brought about by the War the difficulty of the foreign exchanges. After the War this is going to be enormous. We are going to have to barter goods for goods, because in many cases we will not be able to work our business in the old way as we did through bill brokers and bankers. Atone time in my experience, acting for the British Government, I was buying produce for them in a country in Europe. That country wanted gold. With the greatest difficulty I arranged with the Treasury to pay in gold. Then that country demurred even to taking gold. Why? They said there were two things they wanted.
One was coal and the other was wool. Gold, they said, was valueless to them when they had neither coal nor wool. It came to my mind that this difficulty of the exchanges is bound to be solved in the last issue by barter. If we can increase in our own Empire this possibility of barter we are going to reduce the necessity of paying the United States in cash, because we shall be able to increase the produce all over the Empire which can be given instead of money. Let me give hon. Members one instance where we could vastly increase the possibility in one of our Colonies. That Colony has a greater area than Great Britain. The part of it that is under cultivation to-day is less than half the size of the county of Kent. The fertility of its soil is so great that experts say we can grow 2,000,000 tons of sugar there, in addition to that this Colony had enormous resources in timber land minerals. I claim that by giving Imperial preference you can build up the trade of British Guiana which will produce 2,000,000 tons of sugar per year, and in payment for that 2,000,000 tons of sugar you will have a constant demand in this country for all kinds of machinery, railway plant, hardware and textile goods of all kinds.

I remember the time when America gave Cuba a preference of £2 per ton as against the sugar grown in the British West Indies. The result of that was a demand in Glasgow within a short period for half a million pounds' worth of sugar-crushing plant. The effect was instantaneous! Imperial Preference, not in terms of the 44 millions of people in this country, but of a preference given within the British Empire to 400 millions of people to grow certain articles within their own Dominions—I say that the men of this country will never realise what it means! Canada has set us an example. She has said: "We will give a preference on sugar grown in the British West Indies as against sugar grown in Cuba." That has arisen out of the mutual interests and trade between the British West Indies and Canada. I say let us do this here, not on a scale of 44 millions but with the idea in our minds of a preference given to 400 millions of people in the British Empire. Then will be realised all that will be meant by Inter-Colonial and Dominions trade under our flag. Another thing will be realised. If you want to make money you can conjure and make money in this way.
Our present Prime Minister talked to us many years ago in this House, till some of us were tired, about unearned increment in land. I believe, and have come to believe, that increment on land is something which the State has a right to participate in.

On this great State of British Guiana the land is under the jurisdiction of the local government in regard to its ownership. Let us on reasonable terms make an agreement with them that if we spend millions of pounds in irrigation and transport and the work of opening up their place that we will give them a share in the profits in consideration of them giving us that land. Then let us let it out to those who will till it on reasonable terms, and at the end of eight years let it be sold, as we sell land in Ireland, for a long term of forty years. Let us own the town sites of the towns which will come there, and I say that this great debt of ours will vanish, and we may out of the British Empire not have to find taxation but be receiving money on the balance from income over our expenditure. This may be a fairy tale to some people. I have been studying this matter for months. I claim that the possibilities of a reasonable exploitation of the British Empire on behalf of the taxpayer and on behalf of the whole Empire for its good is a matter that does need probing into. I may be told that I am too sanguine, and we shall be met with all kinds of criticisms, and to meet them I have jotted down two or three. One criticism may be that what I suggest will prove an unfair exploitation of native populations. I claim that in this House and in this country we have such a sense of justice and love of freedom that all our settlers all over the world carry with them that same measure of justice and freedom, and they have shown this spirit amongst those to whom they have gone and whom they have ruled, and I think there is no fear of any exploitation of native populations by any action that may be taken in this House.

There is another objection which may be raised, and that is the question of monopoly rights to concessionnaires. My hon. Friend who proposed this Amendment laid down that we were going to have hard-headed business men to handle these matters, who will see that no unfair monopoly rights are granted. My hon.
Friend replied to the question of the curtailment of individual rights which was raised from the benches opposite. It is constantly argued that collectivism is to take the place of individualism. Now, I have been an upholder of individualism all my life, but I find after careful analysis of many matters, that there is a place for collectivism. I think we may safely say that in matters where there is no landlord or previous ownership or vested rights collectivism may fairly take the place of individualism, but where vested interests already exist the State must be very careful where it put sits hands. I want it to put its hands where there are no inhabitants and no cultivation. There are vast areas in our Empire which come under that category. I am delighted to find that the Indian Government have solved this matter, and they have decided to spend Government money on desert land and make it blossom. We will not give it to the people, but we will allow them to have it at a reasonable rental. There are already properties in India where there were no inhabitants, and by State enterprise a vast change has been brought about, and in one case I am creditably informed 33 per cent. income on the capital expended is being received.

Then there is the principle established in regard to the Assouandam which enabled the population to irrigate the land from the waters supplied. That may be a right policy for the future, and it may be that we must change that policy, but I want those who are listening to me and the people of the country to consider where that policy can be changed to this effect. I think the time has arrived when we should appoint a Committee to consider where there are conditions and circumstances where this new policy may be developed so that the State may participate in the results of that enterprise. We may be told that we are wrong and that this would be subversive of our long 300 years history of individual ownership in the building up of this Empire.

I admire, read and know the wonderful results that have followed great individual efforts, but there is something in the character of the Anglo-Saxon race that loves adventure and enterprise, and I believe that the opening up of the resources of our Empire will create an enormous number of opportunities for individuals. I heard the other day of a vast cedar forest in Central Africa worth
£17,000,000. No individual can get near it, no individual enterprise can touch it, but the State could open it, and then give opportunities for individual effort under that State enterprise. There are many things in this Empire that have never been touched, and cannot be touched by individual effort to quickly bring them into a state of productivity. There are vast forests in the north of India that have hardly been touched. When I was in New York a year ago I heard that an American had been prospecting timber tracts in British Honduras for turpentine and resin. Why has this land not been touched? It is because there are no means of communication between the forest and the sea, and somebody must build a line. I was told it was only a distance of twenty-eight miles, but no individual will go to the cost. Surely there are things in our Empire that are worth inquiring about, worth looking into, and worth considering by this House as to whether they are feasible and possible, and whether we, as a State, should appoint commissioners or authorities to undertake these great developments! I submit that the Amendment proposed, while we do not mean to put it to a Division, is one that deserves from the Government the closest scrutiny and the most careful consideration.

Mr. JESSON: This is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing the House of Commons, and I hope, if I transgress the Rules, that you will deal indulgently with me. I have very great pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and I want to show that we are nearer to the proposals outlined by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox) than a good many of us realise. I would like, first of all, to call attention to this matter from the labour point of view. I believe that there are great possibilities in it for labour. May I point out the enormous debt which the War has left upon the country has caused very serious consideration even among the ranks of labour. As I understand the figures, the cost of the upkeep of the country before the War was something less than £200,000,000 per annum, whereas the cost for the upkeep of the country when the War is finally settled will be something between £750,000,000 and £800,000,000. Where are we going to get this extra £550,000,000 or £600,000,000 per annum? That is a very great problem. It appears
to me it will be impossible to raise that gigantic sum of money by the ordinary pre-war methods of taxation. The Government will have to go further afield in order to find something to relieve the present taxation without adding other burdens to the shoulders of the taxpayers. From that point of view I think the suggestion that the Government should participate in developing the resources of the Empire is most admirable, not only for raising revenue, but also for finding employment and increasing the wealth of the country. When I get into difficulties on these matters I like to go back to first principles. The position is this: We want more wealth. At the same time we have wealth in the shape of raw material in the British Empire which is beyond anything ever contemplated. It is something stupendous. On the other hand we have an enormous number of people wanting employment. There can be no difficulty in organising both the resources of the Empire and labour and bringing them together to produce wealth such as this country never dreamt of in pre-war days. Looking at it from that point of view, I suggest there is a good deal in it both in regard to raising money and in respect of finding employment.
I am a very strong believer in the recommendations of the Whitley Report. Sooner or later those proposals will be put into operation. During the recent election I advocated them very strongly wherever I went, and I was met with two kinds of opposition. In the first case my Free Trade friends said that if we carried the Whitley Report recommendations to their logical conclusion it would mean that every industry would became a monopoly, because the employers and the workers would be combined, and the two together would be able to exploit the public. On the other hand a good many of my labour friends told me I was anxious to speed up labour on purpose to produce more profits for the employing classes. There is a good seal in both those contentions, but my suggestion for overcoming them is a very simple one. First of all, if we are going to have an increase in production to help us pay our way, there must be a better understanding between employers and employed. That is provided for in the machinery laid down in the recommendations of the Whitley Report. There is just one thing lacking, and that is an incentive
to labour with regard to labour's share in the extra produce through the two sides co-operating together, and my view is that to get both sides to put their backs into it and produce more wealth the first charge on the cost of production ought to be a proper rate of pay for the workers, from the managing director down to the humblest worker. The second charge ought to be the ordinary establishment charges which all industries have to bear, and the third charge should be a fair rate of interest to those who have put up the money to make the thing possible.
The next point is that so far as the profits made are concerned they should be divided between those who have done the work and made it possible. Here I want to bring in a representative of the Government to protect the consumers' interest. If capital and labour, working together, are allowed to exploit the public, there will certainly be an outcry against it. If we are going to develop along the lines upon which I hope there will be development, I want to see the Government come in and give all the assistance possible to both capital and labour in building up each particular industry and then taking a share of the profits. In that way all the profits, after labour, capital and management have been provided for, should be shared between the workers—that is, from the managing director downwards—the shareholders, and the Government. The Government would take their share for the assistance they would lend in the shape of research and that kind of thing. Then we should have a very happy trinity.
If you apply that principle to the development of the enormous resources of the British Empire, then we are going to get the wealth that the country so much desires at the present time. Take some of the instances that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox). There are certain things which private enterprise alone could not possibly undertake. Take the case of Canada. Canada is a huge country and one of the richest in the world. It is computed that there is sufficient coal under the surface of Canada to heat and light for 1,000 years 1,000 millions of the human race. That country wants developing. The ordinary enterprise of capital cannot possibly do it. A scheme has been suggested by a committee, with which my hon. Friend and
I are associated, under which, instead of people going out to Canada and being dumped down upon small plots of land, where they have to do the clearing, where there are no roads, no railways, and no buildings, that the Government of Canada and the Government of this country, combined with the Government of any other of our self-governing Dominions, should work together and put up sufficient capital, first of all, to clear the land, make roads and railways, and then the land would rise in value from practically nothing at the present time to anything from £20 to £40 per acre. That would mean an enormous increase in the value of that land. I am told there would be no lack of people who would willingly go to Canada and live there, and cultivate the soil, provided that all this very hard, laborious and tiresome work were done on the lines suggested. That is a suggestion which cannot possibly be carried out by ordinary individuals, whether capitalists or workers. It must be a scheme in which the State itself takes a very great part.
The same argument applies to Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and many other parts of the British Empire. It means that if we are going to develop this Empire and make this old country worthy of the heroes who have saved it, the Government must come along and assist both employers and employés. If we work on those lines, I have not the slightest fear that we shall produce all the wealth we want or even double and treble it. I have no anxieties with regard to the weight of debt that will be left on this country after the War is over. That to me is a mereflea-bite. If we only get going and develop these enormous resources, by so doing we shall not only find the money to pay off our National Debt—which can well be done within a quarter of a century—but in addition to that we shall find enormous avenues for employment. If, in addition, we apply all the labour-saving machinery I believe it will be possible for us to establish even a six-hours working day as has been suggested by Lord Leverhulme. All these things are possible provided capital and labour work togather with the hearty co-operation of the Government and with the assistance of unlimited machinery.
I also believe that we are going to find avenues of employment by reducing the hours of labour and by this increase of wealth, and in connection with the in-
creased use of machinery. As soon as we get an eight-hours day or a forty-eight hours week we are going to open up new avenues of employment that we little dream of at the present time, because as soon as people get leisure they will go about and enjoy themselves, and that fact alone is going to open up new channels of employment. For instance, it has been suggested that the people of this country could take a couple of month's holiday every year. That in itself would find an enormous amount of employment. I am one of those who are sanguine enough to believe that the time will come when the ordinary worker will be able to take his two months' holiday every year, like many others. That is going to create an enormous amount of employment. It can easily be done. As long as we all work together, instead of pulling one against another, as we did in pre-war days, all these things are possible. In pre-war days capital on the one hand sought to get as much work out of the worker as it possibly could, paying as little wages as possible. On the other hand, labour retaliated by gutting the highest wages possible through its trade unions, giving as little as it could in return. In addition to that, it had a very great antipathy to the introduction of too much labour-saving machinery, because it thought too much labour-saving machinery was going to deprive their comrades of employment. I believe the whole of that was a great fallacy. We are now finding out that it was. Low wages are a fallacy, for the simple reason that people cannot buy the commodities that their own labour has created. That is the position. High wages mean better trade all the way round. I hope the House will not be frightened at the suggestions which have been made by my hon. Friend, because we are steadily leading, in my opinion, to that position I want to see new avenues of employment created, not for the sake of employment alone, but for the sake of getting the money to pay for all the things we require.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): I frankly regret that a larger House has not been present to listen to the very suggestive and, I think, valuable speeches which have been delivered by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and also by the hon. Member (Mr. Jesson). Certainly I myself feel a very large
measure of sympathy with them, and I am glad to say the Leader of the House, whom I have consulted, has authorised me I to say that the Government will certainly give careful and sympathetic consideration both to the general suggestions made by the Mover and Seconder, and also more particularly to their request for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the matter further. What I think commends these proposals to the careful consideration of the Government and the House is that they deal directly with what is perhaps the most vital and urgent of all the issues which face us in future, namely, how this country is going to cope with the immense burden of debt. Whatever may be the outcome of peace, there will still be a great burden of debt to deal with in this country, and it rests with us to create a new economic life, and to lay the foundations of new prosperity in this country and Empire to sustain it.
The suggestion which my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson-Fox) has made falls in a sense into two parts. It is in one sense a technical suggestion for a better or a more convenient method of levying taxes. He says that there are advantages from the point of view of the nation, possibly also of the taxpayer, in tapping production at the source, in being able at the dock, at the factory, at the generating station, on the railway, and on the banks of canals to find revenue for the country, without having to worry the individual citizen by demanding taxes, and subsequently interfering with his activity. That, I have no doubt, has much to commend it. Of course, there are many difficulties, as my hon. Friend well knows, in any form of State enterprise. Still undoubtedly there is an element which does deserve very careful consideration in the suggestion that, as we have come near to the limit of the ordinary method of raising revenue, we should inquire whether the system of partnership with industry at the very outset has not its uses. But I think there is a second and more important consideration which the hon. Member has made clear. It is not merely for a better system of taxation of existing wealth that he lays these proposals before the House, but it is a suggestion for the co-operation of the State in the creation of new wealth. That is the real, vital and essential thing. If new wealth be created it does not really
matter in the long run whether it be tapped at first hand by the State as the owner or controller or whether the State shall get it through taxes. What is important is the idea that the power and resources of the State with the organising ability at its command might be able to create new sources of wealth, more particularly in a direction where individual enterprise might not be tempted to create that wealth or might be far slower in doing so. The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Jesson) gave one instance in co-operative land settlement between the Dominion Governments and the British Government. That is one of the essential conditions of creating wealth in regions of immense possibilities, where, without such co-operation, the undeveloped wealth would be worthless. That is obviously one direction where private enterprise can do little, though bodies like the Canadian Pacific Railway have certainly done relatively great things. Undoubtedly there is a great field on the importance of which the State might well ponder. Then there is the other important question of communications. Communications from the point of view of private companies are a matter of the direct dividends which may or may not be got from a railway or a steamship. From the point of view of the State those communications are valuable, not only to the particular line, but generally if that line brings wealth and population into a territory. Undoubtedly we have reached a stage in the development of the British Empire and in the development of the industrial system of this country when the State will very carefully have to consider whether there are opportunities for using its power to create wealth quickly, and to create conditions in which other people can make wealth quickly—certainly more quickly than if they themselves were left to the ordinary course of the market, the hesitations of capital, and the fears of labour, in embarking upon industry. Certainly those suggestions must fall on sympathetic, and as far as they were practical, on responsive ears.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) threw out some fruitful suggestions. He suggested that the people of this country should invert the story of Jonah, and become eaters of the whale; and from what he told us I gather that the same consequences will not ensue. Undoubtedly there is vast wealth in the sea which has not been fully utilised, and
whether its utilisation be taken in hand by the State or encouraged by the State is certainly a matter which deserves the fullest consideration. He spoke of the question of State development not only in the self-governing Dominions, but also in the dependent portions of the Empire, and he used a phrase as to which I think I should utter a word of warning. A word like "exploitation" has its legitimate and its dangerous' sense. Members of the House know that the bedrock of our Colonial administration all over the world is that we govern the natives of those countries which we control as trustees for their interest, and that the whole policy of Government in any of our Colonies, I mean those which are not self-governing, is directed solely and singly to the point of view of the welfare of the natives. We have to be very careful—and I just utter this one word of warning—that we should not put ourselves in a position where there would be any conflict of interests between the Government of this country, which has the Colonial administration under its thumb, and the interests of the natives, or where our Government would be tempted in the direction of making a profit for the taxpayer here as against the interests of the natives for whom we are trustees. I do not think that there is necessarily any conflict between the two conceptions of utilising the development of the vast resources of the Empire in order to help forward trade in this country, and at the same time to help these peoples. But I do wish to put in a word of warning that in any particular methods which we apply and any particular measures taken we have to watch very carefully all the time to see that we should not be put, as an Imperial Government., in a false position as between our interests as representing the taxpayers of this country and our interests as trustees for millions of people on a lower plane of political development, who look to us for their welfare and their elevation.
The hon. Member referred to the immense help which the principle of Imperial Preference might be in the development of those places. That principle, which caused bitter party conflict for many years before the War, has, I think, now reached a position where it stands above and to one side of party conflict. We are all agreed that in so far as the interests of the revenue—industrial interests, or whatever they may be—of
this country necessitate any particular duty being imposed in any particular direction, that duty should be lowered as regards the produce of the Empire. That imposes no obligation on the country to tax itself in any way for the benefit of anybody. It is only the assertion of the general principle that we regard our fellow countrymen of the Empire as on a different plane from that on which we regard others. The hon. Member for Walthamstow really crystallised the whole issue which the Mover and Seconder to this Amendment laid before the House when he said that we want more wealth, and that we have boundless potential wealth in the British Empire. It is only a question of bringing the people of this country into direct and fruitful contact with the immense undeveloped resources which the Empire contains, and of utilising the brain-power and organising capacity of the country to see that these sources of wealth are opened up for the benefit of the country and of the inhabitants of every part of the Empire.
The note of hope that the hon. Member has struck is, I am sure, the right note in which we have to enter upon the period following the Great War. Do not let us start a period that contains many seeds of difficulty and many dangers in a spirit of despondency We have come out of this War with heavy burdens and many difficulties upon us, but we start this period with opportunities such as no nation in the world's history has ever had. I would ask hon. Members to look back upon the history of the United States during the past century. One hundred years ago the United States were left with a population of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 in a, great area. Within the century they rose to a population of over 100,000,000 with that area still only half developed in the economic sense. We realise more truly to-day that we have ever realised before that the United States is the greatest economic phenomenon of the nineteenth century. I say that if the nineteenth century was, economically speaking, the century of the United States, the twentieth century is to be the century of the British Empire. We start with regions three or four times as great as the territory of the United States, with a far greater nucleus of a capable industrial population. It will be our fault, and our fault alone if,
in two or three generations, the progress of this Empire in well-being of every sort, as reflected in every home, in every part of it, will not be the outstanding factor in the world's history since the great War.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: My hon. Friends and I who have been responsible for putting down this Amendment—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make another speech.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: After what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes before Eleven o'clock.